Massachusetts Court: Police Powerless Outside Jurisdiction

by The Newspaper

Published: July 13th, 2010

massachusetts court police powerless outside jurisdiction

The Appeals Court of Massachusetts last month confirmed the principle that a police officer has no more power than any other citizen outside of his legal jurisdiction. The decision came in the context of an August 4, 2006 incident where Joseph Limone was driving his Oldsmobile on Montvale Avenue in Woburn just past Interstate 93. Limone rear-ended the car in front of him, which just happened to be driven by a uniformed police officer.

Somerville Police Officer Robert Kelleher just finished his shift and had been returning home. Kelleher got out of the vehicle, and approached Limone who repeatedly apologized. Kelleher ordered Limone out of the car. After noticing that the man appeared drunk, Kelleher pulled the keys out of the ignition so Limone could not drive away. He then told Limone to go back and wait in his car until Woburn police arrived. Minutes later, Woburn Officer David Simonds took over and asked Limone for his license and registration, Limone handed him a pack of cigarettes. Upon arrest, Limone blew a .12 on the breathalyzer and was booked for what would turn out to be his seventh conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). The court of appeal, however, found fault with his initial arrest.

“A police officer’s power to make a warrantless arrest is generally limited to the boundaries of the jurisdiction in which the officer is employed, and, absent fresh pursuit for an arrestable offense, a police officer is generally without authority to make an arrest outside his jurisdiction,” the appellate court ruled. “Outside his jurisdictional boundaries, a police officer stands as a private citizen, and if not in fresh and continued pursuit of a suspect, an arrest by him is valid only if a private citizen would be justified in making the arrest under the same circumstances.”

Because first-offense DUI is a misdemeanor — Kelleher only had reason to suspect Limone of a first offense — a private citizen would have no right to detain an individual for an apparent DUI.

“It was subsequent investigation that disclosed the defendant had been convicted on at least six prior occasions of operating while under the influence of liquor,” the court concluded. “Thus, the seizure of the defendant was unlawful.”

Because the initial arrest was unlawful, the evidence against Limone was thrown out as the ‘fruit of the poisonous tree.’ A copy of the decision is available at the source link below.

Massachusetts v. Limone (Court of Appeals, State of Massachusetts, 6/22/2010)

[Courtesy: Thenewspaper.com]

#Crime&Punishment #Law #Traffic

The Newspaper

More by The Newspaper

Comments

Join the conversation

5 of 33 comments

Revjasper on Jul 13, 2010

This doesn't make sense to me. It's totally fine about jurisdiction ending at the town line in Mass. What's confusing to me is that after the 5th DUI conviction in Mass, the drivers license is revoked permanently. That is after the mandatory minimum prison term for each felony conviction (3rd = 150 days, 4th = 1 year, 5th = 2 years) the person is not allowed to drive again, no hardship license allowed. It would be hard to exchange information with the other party when they have no driver's license or insurance. None of this is mentioned in the above article and linked case brief. What's confusing to me is that the officer didn't relay the plate number in his initial phone call to the Woburn PD. There's some good information that could have been passed on. Registered gun owner? History of violent felonies? The usual info that a police officer would want at any traffic stop. That information (if linked with that vehicle) would have given the Somerville officer the information that it was a felony DUI stop. I'm sure every force in MA is now re-writing their procedures because of this one.

Like Reply
Lumbergh21 on Jul 14, 2010

I'll reiterate my point which was missed. I guess I wasn't clear enough, but why would any DUI, particularly one involving an accident, not be a felony!? I don't care if it's his first, fifth, or 100th. DUI, particularly when there is an accident, should be a felony. Evidently, if the cop had reason to believe that a felony had been committed, he would have had the right to detain the drunken SOB.

Like Reply
- See 2 previous
- Ronnie Schreiber on Jul 14, 2010
  
  He'd still be out of his jurisdiction and could only legally detain the driver if that state's laws permit citizen arrests for the same crime. Outside of his department's jurisdiction, he's not a cop.
  
  Like
- NulloModo on Jul 14, 2010
  
  I have to agree with Ronnie here, a badge isn't a universal license to detain someone. The police have clear rules defining what they can do, and when and where they can do it. When they violate those rules they should be held accountable just as civilians are when they break the law. The officer in question used poor judgment, and the court made the right decision not to condone the behavior or set a precedent where the actions could be repeated, perhaps even in future situations where the lines of what should have been done weren't so blurred. Had the suspect driven off, all the officer would have had to do was taken down his license plate number, and he would have had him on a hit and run, which combined with the fact that the guy had six prior DUIs and couldn't possibly have had a valid license, would have been enough to put him behind bars for a while.
  
  Like
- Snakebit on Aug 10, 2013
  
  Why a DUI, even just one, is not punished as a felony? Mainly, that's up to your state legislature. Felony, by most state definitions, involves a jail sentence on one year or more, if given the maximum term. That doesn't just mean you lose your license for a year, that means you spend a whole year(or more) in jail, which in most cases means you lose your job and you have a felony conviction on your record. THAT means your chances of getting a job after you're released are diminished. DUI is a very serious crime, but a lot of politicians, for the above reasons, are resistant to making first offense DUI a felony. Obviously if a serious accident or death were to be involved, other crimes would be charged, and felony penalties would kick in at that time.
  
  Like

Recent Comments

Honda1 Unions were needed back in the early days, not needed know. There are plenty of rules and regulations and government agencies that keep companies in line. It's just a money grad and nothing more. Fain is a punk!
1995 SC If the necessary number of employees vote to unionize then yes, they should be unionized. That's how it works.
Sobhuza Trooper That Dave Thomas fella sounds like the kind of twit who is oh-so-quick to tell us how easy and fun the bus is for any and all of your personal transportation needs. The time to get to and from the bus stop is never a concern. The time waiting for the bus is never a concern. The time waiting for a connection (if there is one) is never a concern. The weather is never a concern. Whatever you might be carrying or intend to purchase is never a concern. Nope, Boo Cars! Yeah Buses! Buses rule!Needless to say, these twits don't actual take the damn bus.
MaintenanceCosts Nobody here seems to acknowledge that there are multiple use cases for cars.Some people spend all their time driving all over the country and need every mile and minute of time savings. ICE cars are better for them right now.Some people only drive locally and fly when they travel. For them, there's probably a range number that works, and they don't really need more. For the uses for which we use our EV, that would be around 150 miles. The other thing about a low range requirement is it can make 120V charging viable. If you don't drive more than an average of about 40 miles/day, you can probably get enough electrons through a wall outlet. We spent over two years charging our Bolt only through 120V, while our house was getting rebuilt, and never had an issue.Those are extremes. There are all sorts of use cases in between, which probably represent the majority of drivers. For some users, what's needed is more range. But I think for most users, what's needed is better charging. Retrofit apartment garages like Tim's with 240V outlets at every spot. Install more L3 chargers in supermarket parking lots and alongside gas stations. Make chargers that work like Tesla Superchargers as ubiquitous as gas stations, and EV charging will not be an issue for most users.
MaintenanceCosts I don't have an opinion on whether any one plant unionizing is the right answer, but the employees sure need to have the right to organize. Unions or the credible threat of unionization are the only thing, history has proven, that can keep employers honest. Without it, we've seen over and over, the employers have complete power over the workers and feel free to exploit the workers however they see fit. (And don't tell me "oh, the workers can just leave" - in an oligopolistic industry, working conditions quickly converge, and there's not another employer right around the corner.)