 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
City of Tacoma v. Durham5/7/1999
a relationship in time between the commission of the offense, commencement of the pursuit, and apprehension of the suspect."
Durham concedes that element (1) has been superseded by statute, in that fresh pursuit may be undertaken for traffic offenses. He argues that the record does not support element (2), because he did not know he was being pursued while he was in Tacoma. He adds that without pursuit across a boundary line of the jurisdiction wherefrom a suspect is thought to have committed a crime, there is no pursuit, let alone fresh pursuit. We disagree.
As support for this argument, he cites the Wenatchee holding. There, a Wenatchee police officer saw a car without a rearview mirror and a vehicle hood and followed it, without activating his vehicle's siren or flashing lights, across the Chelan County boundary into Douglas County. At that time, officers generally had no authority to arrest an offender outside the geographical boundaries of their municipality, but could such make an arrest when in fresh pursuit. The Court of Appeals held, however, that the fresh pursuit exception did not justify the arrest in Wenatchee:
"While pursuit does not imply a fender-smashing Hollywood style chase scene, it does connote something more than mere casual following. . . . There is no evidence Mr. Durham was attempting to escape or fleeing the jurisdiction to avoid arrest. Nor is there evidence that Mr. Durham knew he was being pursued while in Wenatchee." Wenatchee, 43 Wn. App. at 551-52.
In a footnote, the court noted the recent enactment of the Washington Mutual Aid Peace Officers Powers Act, and its expansion of jurisdictional authority under certain circumstances, but observed that the Act was inapplicable because Durham's arrest occurred before the Act became effective. Wenatchee, 43 Wn. App. at 549-50 n.1.
The Act does apply here. At first blush, the definition of fresh pursuit in RCW 10.93.120(2) appears to fully incorporate the common law elements of that doctrine. However, the Legislature used the words "without limitation" as a preface to "as defined by the common law." RCW 10.93.120(2). It also removed the first element of the common law definition by allowing police to arrest outside their jurisdiction when in pursuit of a possible traffic offender.
The Legislature did not provide an express directive that it was abrogating the common law by enacting RCW 10.93. See McNeal v. Allen, 95 Wn.2d 265, 269, 621 P.2d 1285 (1980) (to deviate from the common law, Legislature must clearly state intent to do so). However, by applying fresh pursuit to non-felony offenses and traffic infractions, the statute clearly is inconsistent with the common law as defined in Wenatchee. We interpret the phrase "without limitation" to mean that courts are not limited by the common law definition, but may consider the Legislature's overall intent to use practical considerations in deciding whether a particular arrest across jurisdictional lines was reasonable. See State ex rel. Madden v. Public Util. Dist. No. 1, 83 Wn.2d 219, 221-22, 517 P.2d 585 (1973) (obvious meaning of a statute must prevail over pre-existing common law), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 808 (1974). Here, Officer Quinn's pursuit of Durham was immediate and necessary to apprehend a dangerous driver. Quinn was required to cross into the City of Lakewood to effectuate the traffic stop and prevent harm to other drivers; the inherent mobility of Durham's driving offense in an urban area should not thwart his prosecution. See generally, Warden, Md. Penitentiary v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 298-300, 87 S. Ct. 1642, 18 L. Ed. 2d 782 (1967) (Fourth Amendment does not demand that police de
Page 1 2 3 Washington DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|