Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

DUI and Jurisdiction

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • DUI and Jurisdiction

    If anyone can reference any DUI court cases pertaining to jurisdiction I would apprecitate it. Especially Maryland cases.
    John 3:16

  • #2
    Not sure what you're looking for. Every officer has a right to intervene when there is an immediate risk to public safety. I remember one case in Tennessee where a TN Valley Authority (TVA) police officer came upon a car driving erratic and all over the road. He initiated a stop on the driver and detained him until a jurisdictional LEO arrived on scene. The TVA police normally patrol TVA facilities and other government-owned property. They are federal LEO's. The case went to the TN Court of Appeals. Although the defense didn't argue specifically about jurisdiction, the appellate courts did bring up it up in their opinion, and under TN state law, the TVA officer had the same authority as a state/local LEO even though he wasn't near any TVA/government facilities.

    http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/opinions/...1/harrisnr.pdf

    I would say that if you come upon a vehicle in your jurisdiction and during your observations to help determine a possible DUI driver, you drive out of your jurisdiction, the stop would still hold weight. The offense was occurring in your area before the stop was made so I think it would not be a big issue. Defense can argue such, but I think the charge would stick.

    That's why laws are challenged.
    Last edited by SgtScott31; 04-04-2007, 02:02 AM.
    I'm 10-8 like a shark in a sea of crime..

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by SgtScott31
      Not sure what you're looking for. Every officer has a right to intervene when there is an immediate risk to public safety. I remember one case in Tennessee where a TN Valley Authority (TVA) police officer came upon a car driving erratic and all over the road. He initiated a stop on the driver and detained him until a jurisdictional LEO arrived on scene. The TVA police normally patrol TVA facilities and other government-owned property. They are federal LEO's. The case went to the TN Court of Appeals. Although the defense didn't argue specifically about jurisdiction, the appellate courts did bring up it up in their opinion, and under TN state law, the TVA officer had the same authority as a state/local LEO even though he wasn't near any TVA/government facilities.

      http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/opinions/...1/harrisnr.pdf

      I would say that if you come upon a vehicle in your jurisdiction and during your observations to help determine a possible DUI driver, you drive out of your jurisdiction, the stop would still hold weight. The offense was occurring in your area before the stop was made so I think it would not be a big issue. Defense can argue such, but I think the charge would stick.

      That's why laws are challenged.

      To add on that.....I've had Missouri Water Patrol and US Army Corps of Engineer LEOs stop folks for possible DUI and held them till we got there and processed them.....and never had a problem at all. They did a good statement on what they observed before we showed up.....and I always make them put in what they observed as I did my FSTs.....and off it went to the PA.

      Never lost a one....and probably did about 10 of them over a four year time span.....

      Comment


      • #4
        When I do a loop around town I have to go into another jurisdiction to get back, same with them. I can recall a hand full of times where we witnessed things happen in each others town. We just initiate the stop, call over that agency and write the summons on their ticket books. No problems.

        Comment


        • #5
          DUI Jurisdiction.

          Not a problem as a state officer. Did have a guy tell me once that I couldn't arrest him as he was in the city. Asked him what state the city was in? End of argument.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by PhilipCal
            Not a problem as a state officer. Did have a guy tell me once that I couldn't arrest him as he was in the city. Asked him what state the city was in? End of argument.
            We call that "poaching" back home....

            Comment


            • #7
              Not poaching if it goes down in front of you.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by PhilipCal
                Not poaching if it goes down in front of you.
                Yeah it is when you should be out in the county doing you thing....and conveniently show up in town around 02 (when the bars are closing) to stop at the local stop and rob to get your coffee or soda....and you get one.......

                Comment


                • #9
                  in Texas, the traffic violation has to be observed in your jurisdiction. one smaller agency in DFW was following suspected DWIs. being a small city, a lot of their violations didn't come until after they'd left their city. since DWI is an after the fact offense, you don't actually stop for DWI, you stop for the traffic violation only to learn later that it was a result of DWI. one of this agency's cases was challenged, and the court found that officers must observe the traffic violations in their own jurisdiction.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by TPO
                    in Texas, the traffic violation has to be observed in your jurisdiction. one smaller agency in DFW was following suspected DWIs. being a small city, a lot of their violations didn't come until after they'd left their city. since DWI is an after the fact offense, you don't actually stop for DWI, you stop for the traffic violation only to learn later that it was a result of DWI. one of this agency's cases was challenged, and the court found that officers must observe the traffic violations in their own jurisdiction.
                    Maybe it's different in TX, but I don't see a DUI/DWI as an "after the fact" offense. I can pull a vehicle over based solely on suspicion of DUI without the driver committing any traffic violations. An example is a car weaving or drifting within his own lane. Technically, if he doesn't cross over the center (yellow) or right (fog) line, you're saying that we can't stop him because he hasn't commited a traffic violation.

                    Now given, most of the DUI offenders we nail are because of speeding, reckless driving and other violations, but we really don't have to wait for them to commit such before making a stop.
                    I'm 10-8 like a shark in a sea of crime..

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by TPO
                      in Texas, the traffic violation has to be observed in your jurisdiction. one smaller agency in DFW was following suspected DWIs. being a small city, a lot of their violations didn't come until after they'd left their city. since DWI is an after the fact offense, you don't actually stop for DWI, you stop for the traffic violation only to learn later that it was a result of DWI. one of this agency's cases was challenged, and the court found that officers must observe the traffic violations in their own jurisdiction.
                      Actually, you are incorrect. Municipal Police Officers have had countywide jurisdiction for traffic offenses for 2 years now. Also, I have made several arrests for DWI outside the city after stopping the vehicle for.... suspicion of DWI, no problems at all.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I had a case involving an officer that was out of his jurisdiction. He was traveling on the interstate 3 counties away from where he worked. He was behind an extreme drunk driver that was going from one emergency lane to the other. The out of town officer contacted our dispatcher to have a Trooper enroute. I was a long way off and the drunk was an immediate hazard to everyone on the road. I advised him to make the traffic stop in the interest of public safety. He made the stop and I arrived on scene and made the arrest. The drunk pled out and I never heard another thing about it.
                        I spoke to a defense attorney about the scenario later on. His opinion was that the guy would have been found guilty had he gone to trial. Basically, the attorney said that the officer was complying with my "lawful order" to make the stop out of his jurisdiction.
                        Even if the case had gone to trial, and I lost it in the first 2 minutes, I would have done the same thing. Our primary job is to keep the public safe, and THAT guy needed to be stopped before he killed someone. Getting convictions isn't as important as protecting the public.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Getting convictions isn't as important as protecting the public.
                          Exactly...
                          I'm 10-8 like a shark in a sea of crime..

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            In Texas as long as you observe your initial reason for the stop in your 'city' and you end up pulling them over outside your city all is kosher. I'd like to know where it says the city officers now have county wide jurisdiction....Im always up to learning. As I've understood a city officer has jurisdiction concerning all other offenses just because he's a peace officer...all except Class C traffic violations...unless the offense occurred within his view..i.e., swerving...
                            Moooooooooooo, I'm a goat

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              In Indiana a police officer is a police officer anywhere in the state. For a DUI ( Or any title 9 infractions,misdemeanors or felonys) you must be in full uniform and or a fully marked partol car. Reserve officers can be limited by their governing board as to their off duty powers. Not sure about all others.
                              "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson

                              Comment

                              MR300x250 Tablet

                              Collapse

                              What's Going On

                              Collapse

                              There are currently 4170 users online. 206 members and 3964 guests.

                              Most users ever online was 26,947 at 07:36 PM on 12-29-2019.

                              Welcome Ad

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X