Which of the following could lead to an arrest for a public offense by a private citizen?

The correct response to the question is founded on the principle of a private citizen's authority to make a citizen's arrest, which is typically warranted under circumstances when a crime is being actively committed in their presence. Witnessing someone break a window is a clear and direct observation of a criminal act—specifically, vandalism or potential burglary. This establishes a reasonable basis for a private citizen to intervene and detain the individual until law enforcement can arrive.

In contrast, the other scenarios do not meet the necessary criteria for a citizen's arrest. Hearing a rumor of theft lacks direct evidence and does not confirm that a public offense is occurring in real-time. Seeing someone jaywalking, while a violation of municipal law, often does not rise to the level of a public offense that justifies an arrest, as it is generally considered a minor infraction. Observing suspicious behavior without direct evidence does not provide sufficient grounds for an arrest, as it requires a clear indication that a crime is being committed, rather than just conduct that appears questionable. Thus, only witnessing the act of breaking a window fulfills the requirements set forth by the law for a private citizen to make an arrest for a public offense.