Short answer. Taking you into custody in order to answer for a suspected offense is itself the arrest — the rule does not require a formal declaration, handcuffs, or particular words. Rule 113, Section 1 defines arrest simply as the taking of a person into custody so that he may be bound to answer for the commission of an offense.
What the law says
Arrest is the taking of a person into custody in order that he may be bound to answer for the commission of an offense.
Rule 113, Section 1 — Definition of arrest. Read the full provision →
The definition is about substance, not ritual
Section 1's definition is deliberately spare: arrest is the taking of a person into custody in order that he may be bound to answer for the commission of an offense. Nothing in that sentence requires a spoken formula, handcuffs, or a written notice. What matters is whether custody was actually taken for that purpose. This functional approach is meant to prevent officers from evading arrest-related obligations simply by avoiding the formal label while still restraining someone's liberty for that purpose.
Why 'taking into custody' is the operative phrase
The definition centers on restraint of liberty directed at making the person answer for an offense. If an officer restricts your freedom of movement with that purpose in mind — even informally, even without saying the word 'arrest' — the legal consequence of an arrest, such as the duty to inform you of your rights, can already be in play.
Why this matters to someone stopped by police
Because arrest is defined by what is actually done rather than what is announced, a person who has effectively been taken into custody to answer for an offense should assume the protections tied to arrest already apply, regardless of whether the officer used the word 'arrest' or performed a formal ritual. A person unsure whether they have been arrested should look at whether their freedom of movement was actually restricted for that purpose, not merely at what words were used.
The definition applies regardless of how the arrest is carried out
Nothing in Section 1 ties the definition to a particular method of restraint, whether by physical contact, submission to custody, or some other form of restriction on liberty. What triggers the definition is the taking of custody for the stated purpose, not the specific technique used to accomplish it, which is why the substance of what occurred controls, rather than any particular gesture or form of words used by the person making the arrest. A mere show of authority that a reasonable person would understand as compelling submission can be enough, even without any physical touching, so long as custody for the stated purpose is what actually results.