X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:The question in this appeal is whether an officer of the police department of a city has authority to stop a person for committing a traffic offense when the officer is in another city within the same county. The trial court granted the appellee’s motion to suppress evidence, and the state appealed. A divided panel of the court of appeals affirmed. HOLDING:Affirmed. The authority of a peace officer to arrest without warrant for an offense committed within the officer’s presence or view when the officer is outside the officer’s jurisdiction was significantly altered in 1995 by the act of the Legislature that added Subdivision (g) to Article 14.03 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This act was very specific and clear in not giving police officers and marshals of cities, towns, and villages the authority to arrest without warrant for violations of the Rules of the Road that are committed in their presence or view when they are outside their jurisdictions. There is no room in Article 14.03(g) for the court to find any authority for the officer here, an officer of the Police Department of the City to Plano to arrest without warrant for a violation of the Rules of the Road when he was outside the city. Because the officer here was outside his jurisdiction when he arrested the defendant by temporarily detaining him for violating the Rules of the Road, and he is not an officer who is listed in Subdivision (4) of Article 2.12 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the arrest was in violation of Article 14.03(g) of the Code. Evidence that was obtained in violation of that article may not be admitted in evidence against the accused in the trial of a criminal case, and the courts below were correct to say that it must be excluded. OPINION:Womack, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Meyers, Price, Johnson, Keasler, Hervey, and Cochran, JJ., joined. Holcomb, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Keller, P.J., joined. DISSENT:Holcomb, J. “I respectfully dissent. I have no argument with the majority’s holding that an officer outside his jurisdiction cannot arrest for mere traffic offenses. But the majority’s holding today means that an officer outside his jurisdiction cannot stop and detain a person when the officer witnesses traffic offenses which in themselves also give rise to reasonable suspicion that a felony, a violation of Chapter 42 or 49 of the Penal Code, or a breach of the peace is taking place. This is contrary to the statute and well-settled state and federal jurisprudence; therefore, I dissent.” (footnote omitted)

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.