 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Dahl v. State ex rel Department of Public Safety12/26/2001
r her jurisdiction ordinarily has no greater authority than that of an ordinary citizen, there are certain exceptions to this general rule: "1) hot pursuit; 2) when one municipality has requested the assistance of another municipality's officers; and 3) service of an arrest warrant." Staller v. State, 1996 OK CR 48, 10, 932 P.2d 1136, 1139 (footnotes omitted). The second exception applies here. Although the request for assistance did not involve one municipality's request for assistance from another, case law holds that a request from the OHP to an officer from a municipality may also fall under this exception.
In Smith v. State, 1982 OK CR 89, 656 P.2d 277, the chief of the OHP requested that a Tulsa police officer take over a murder investigation in Rogers County. After the Rogers County Sheriff arrived on the scene, he made a formal request for assistance from the Tulsa Police Department. The court noted that in certain emergency situations officers from one municipality, "upon request of the mayor or chief of police of any other municipality, may serve as police officers in the municipality requesting their assistance upon approval of the governing body of the municipality where such officers are regularly employed." Id. at 28, 656 P.2d at 284 (quoting 11 O.S.1981 § 34-103). The defendant asserted that the evidence obtained by the Tulsa officer should be suppressed because he was acting outside of his jurisdiction; the sheriff rather than the mayor or chief of police requested the assistance; and the governing body of Tulsa did not give formal approval. Id. The Court of Criminal Appeals held that, although the statute was not explicitly complied with, the defendant failed to show that he was prejudiced by the actions of the officers so as to justify the suppression of the evidence. Id.
The facts in Geary v. State, 1985 OK CR 141, 709 P.2d 690, a case cited by neither party, closely resemble the facts before us. There, two police officers in Henryetta received a report of a "vehicle traveling west on the eastbound lane of Interstate 40 between the two Henryetta exits." Id. at 2, 709 P.2d at 692. One of the officers contacted an OHP trooper to advise him of the situation. The trooper asked the officers to "try to spot the automobile and . . . he would proceed there as soon as possible." Id. The officers entered the expressway and proceeded west in the westbound lane. After the officers spotted the vehicle traveling west in the eastbound lane, they engaged their sirens and red lights. The driver did not stop his vehicle for two miles after the officers initiated the siren and lights. When the driver exited the vehicle, the officers observed that he had difficulty walking and speaking and had the odor of alcohol on his breath. Because the trooper was temporarily detained, he requested that the officers take the driver to Henryetta. The driver, who was later convicted of driving under the influence , asserted that the evidence presented at his trial was a product of an illegal arrest because the officers were acting outside of their jurisdiction when they arrested him. Id. at 7, 709 P.2d at 692.
The Court of Criminal Appeals pointed out that "one municipality can request the assistance of another municipality's police officers pursuant to 11 O.S. 1971 § 20.6." Id. at 8, 709 P.2d at 692-93 (quoting Graham v. State, 1977 OK CR 1, 14, 560 P.2d 200, 203). The court further noted that the same reasoning applied to the OHP by way of the Highway Safety Code, 47 O.S. Supp. 1982 § 2-117. The court reasoned:
Since a member of the State Highway Patrol has the "authority to arrest without a writ, rule, order or process any person detected by him in the act of violatin
Page 1 2 3 4 Oklahoma DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|