 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
City of Tacoma v. Durham5/7/1999
William P. Durham appeals his conviction for driving under the influence, contending that his arrest was unlawful and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm.
FACTS
Pierce Transit supervisor Dwayne Stewart saw William Durham's car driving erratically in the area of South 38th and South Tacoma Way in Tacoma, Washington. Durham ran a red light and nearly hit Stewart's car. Because he was concerned that Durham might be under the influence of intoxicants, Stewart called 911 while continuing to follow Durham's car as it weaved across the center line and rolled backward at a stop light.
Radio dispatch informed Tacoma police officer Quinn of Durham's dangerous driving. When he caught up to Durham's car, it was located at South 74th and Lakewood Drive, in the City of Lakewood. Quinn activated his emergency lights, and Durham stopped. Quinn smelled a strong odor of alcohol when he approached Durham. After conducting field sobriety tests, Quinn arrested Durham on suspicion of driving under the influence .
Durham was found guilty after a bench trial on stipulated facts. Because of his medical problems, Durham received a sentence of electronic home monitoring.
At trial in Tacoma Municipal Court, Durham did not object to the validity of his Lakewood arrest. On RALJ appeal, he argued that his arrest was invalid because Officer Quinn, a member of the Tacoma Police Department, lacked authority to arrest him in Lakewood. The RALJ court rejected this claim and upheld Durham's convictions. The court held that the requirements for fresh pursuit had been satisfied, and that Durham's trial lawyer was not ineffective for failing to raise the issue. This court granted Durham's motion for discretionary review.
I.
Durham first argues that the doctrine of fresh pursuit does not justify his arrest because the State did not establish that Durham knew he was being pursued by Quinn when he was within the Tacoma city limits.
RCW 10.93.070(6) allows a police officer to enforce the traffic or criminal laws of this state throughout its territorial bounds when the officer is in fresh pursuit, as defined by RCW 10.93.120(2). RCW 10.93.120 provides in pertinent part as follows:
"(1) Any peace officer who has authority under Washington law to make an arrest may proceed in fresh pursuit of a person (a) who is reasonably believed to have committed a violation of traffic or criminal laws, . . ."
"(2) The term "fresh pursuit," as used in this chapter, includes, without limitation, fresh pursuit as defined by the common law. Fresh pursuit does not necessarily imply immediate pursuit, but pursuit without unreasonable delay."
These statutes are part of the Washington Mutual Aid Peace Officers Powers Act, RCW ch. 10.93, enacted in 1985 to expand common law restrictions on limited territorial enforcement and to remove artificial barriers to mutual aid and cooperative law enforcement. RCW 10.93.001.
As stated, the statutory definition of fresh pursuit relies, at least in part, on the common law. The Court of Appeals identified five common law elements of fresh pursuit in City of Wenatchee v. Durham, 43 Wn. App. 547, 550-51, 718 P.2d 819 (1986):
"(1) that a felony occurred in the jurisdiction; (2) that the individual sought must be attempting to escape to avoid arrest or at least know he is being pursued; (3) that the police pursue without unnecessary delay; (4) that the pursuit must be continuous and uninterrupted, though there need not be continuous surveillance of the suspect nor uninterrupted knowledge of his location; and (5) that there be
Page 1 2 3 Washington DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|