I would just add that the Supreme Court hasn't ruled on this issue, but what complicates the question here is that in a case called Buhay, the court seemed to insist that for charter purposes it was going to treat private security guards as private, except in a very limited number of circumstances. Then, in a subsequent case that came a short time after, called Asante-Mensah, the Supreme Court adopted this historical analysis that we see in Lerke about the origins of the power of citizen's arrest and suggested that the issue of the applicability of the charter hadn't been resolved.
From the standpoint of the existing law, it's just not clear how the Supreme Court would rule on this question. Certainly when you're dealing with your sort of archetypal private citizen you can see how there could be some fairly significant implementational difficulties in terms of imposing an obligation on the private citizen to provide a right to counsel and to observe all the dictates of the charter.
That's not a legal argument for finding that the charter doesn't apply, but it might mean that in the absence or until the Supreme Court decides this question definitively it might be more productive to look at how we can regulate the more sophisticated actors in the system, and those are the private security companies. We know we can actually target them specifically because they're already regulated, so we can make that regulation more robust in a way that sort of hives off this group from the private citizen.
The court might ultimately conclude that the charter applies to all of these actors and we'll just have to wait to see.