 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Commonwealth v. Twombly1/5/2001
Essex.
October 16, 2000.
Motor Vehicle, Operating under the influence. Alcoholic Liquors, Motor vehicle. Police, Unlawful arrest.
Arrest.
Complaint received and sworn to in the Newburyport Division of the District Court Department on September 28, 1998.
A pretrial motion to suppress evidence was heard by Allen G. Swan, J., and the case was heard by Leah W. Sprague, J.
Following a jury-waived trial, the defendant appeals from his conviction of operating a vehicle under the influence of intoxicating liquor. He claims on appeal that it was error for the judge to have denied his motion to suppress all evidence obtained as the result of an improper extraterritorial stop of the defendant in Salisbury by an Amesbury police officer.
We summarize certain salient facts found by the motion judge. From his vantage point on Route 110 in Amesbury at about 8:30 P.M. on September 27, 1998, Amesbury police Sergeant Scholtz saw the defendant speed down the exit ramp from Route 495 onto Route 110 and stop at a red light. As Scholtz followed with two cars separating his cruiser from the defendant's vehicle, he saw the defendant speed off again after the light changed and continue at a high rate of speed into Salisbury. Traffic was moderate and Scholtz tried without success while in Amesbury to clock the defendant's speed, which he estimated as fifty to fifty-five miles per hour in twenty-five to thirty-five mile per hour zones. Scholtz followed the defendant into neighboring Salisbury, where he saw the defendant pass another car uneventfully, but illegally, in a no passing zone. Scholtz contacted the Salisbury police, telling the dispatcher that the defendant "was traveling at a high rate of speed and just passed another vehicle on Elm Street," and asking whether there was a cruiser in the area. Salisbury police Sergeant Sforza overheard the transmission on his radio and told the dispatcher to tell Scholtz that he should make the stop. Scholtz activated his lights for the first time and pulled the defendant over, telling him that he was from Amesbury, that a Salisbury officer would soon be by and that he had stopped the defendant for speeding and improper passing. Sforza arrived moments later, and noticed the defendant's face was red, his eyes bloodshot, and his breath smelled of alcohol. The defendant performed field sobriety tests, was arrested for operating under the influence of liquor, and was cited for speeding and improper passing. He was not charged with operating to endanger.
Discussion.
A police officer's authority to act is limited to his or her jurisdiction, unless specifically authorized by statute or if performing a valid citizen's arrest at common law. Commonwealth v. Savage, 430 Mass. 341, 343-346 (1999). It is the Commonwealth's burden to demonstrate the lawfulness of a warrantless, extraterritorial stop by a police officer. See Commonwealth v. Antobenedetto, 366 Mass. 51, 57 (1974). The Commonwealth contends on appeal that the challenged extraterritorial stop in Salisbury by Amesbury police was lawful because the stop was authorized under G. L. c. 37, ? 13, authorizing an officer to request aid. Commonwealth v. Morrissey, 422 Mass. 1, 6 (1996). That statute authorizes officers to seek "aid in the execution of their office in a criminal case, in the preservation of the peace, in the apprehending or securing of a person for a breach of the peace."
In Morrissey, a Sterling police officer, driving outside his jurisdiction in West Boylston, observed "a Buick automobile run a stop sign then veer to the right of the road and narrowly miss a telephone pole. The car quickly corrected, c
Page 1 2 3 Massachusetts DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|