Boatwright v. Com., Record No. 1356-06-2.

Decision Date31 July 2007
Docket NumberRecord No. 1356-06-2.
Citation647 S.E.2d 515,50 Va. App. 169
CourtVirginia Court of Appeals
PartiesJohn BOATWRIGHT, IV v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia.

(Robert F. McDonnell, Attorney General; Leah A. Darron, Senior Assistant Attorney General, on brief), for appellee. Appellee submitting on brief.

Present: ELDER, KELSEY and McCLANAHAN, JJ.

McCLANAHAN, Judge.

John Boatwright, IV, was convicted in a bench trial for driving under the influence of alcohol, in violation of Code § 18.2-266. On appeal, he contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. He argues the university campus police officer who stopped and arrested him was outside the officer's territorial jurisdiction, and thus his actions were unlawful. Because we find the officer was within a statutorily prescribed distance from the jurisdictional limits of his service area, we affirm appellant's conviction.

BACKGROUND

The facts are not in dispute.1 By order of the Circuit Court for the City of Charlottesville dated March 7, 2005, campus police officers for the University of Virginia were given concurrent jurisdiction with the City of Charlottesville police officers, pursuant to Code § 23-234. On August 8, 2005, Officer D.J. Stuart, a University of Virginia campus police officer, observed Boatwright driving within the corporate limits of Charlottesville at approximately 2:00 a.m. "Observing Boatwright's vehicle while following it," Officer Stuart saw the vehicle nearly hit the curb twice and straddle the white line separating the forward lane from the turning lane. Upon seeing "the vehicle (still within the City limits) come close to the curb a third time," the officer activated his lights and siren. Although Boatwright obeyed the signal to pull over, he was approximately two hundred yards into Albemarle County when his vehicle came to a stop. The officer detected an odor of alcohol when he approached Boatwright. Boatwright then failed a series of field sobriety tests. Following his arrest, Boatwright registered a 0.16 on his breath test.

Boatwright moved to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of the stop, contending the stop was illegal because it occurred outside of Charlottesville, and thus beyond the officer's territorial jurisdiction. The trial court denied the motion, holding that the officer's jurisdiction extended up to one mile beyond the corporate limits of the city, pursuant to Code § 19.2-250.2 The trial court subsequently tried and convicted Boatwright of driving while intoxicated.

ANALYSIS

It is undisputed that the corporate limits of Charlottesville were the boundaries designated in the circuit court's March 7, 2005 order granting University of Virginia campus police concurrent jurisdiction with the Charlottesville police. Based on that designation, Boatwright argues Officer Stuart, as a campus police officer, was prohibited from acting outside those limits, unlike other police officers, whose jurisdiction is variously extended by statute beyond their county, city or town. See Code §§ 19.2-249 and 19.2-250. Boatwright thus contends the trial court erred in ruling Stuart lawfully stopped and arrested Boatwright two hundred yards beyond the corporate limits of Charlottesville, in Albemarle County. We disagree.

A police officer may act "within the jurisdictional limits that the officer serves or within a statutorily prescribed distance from the jurisdictional limits." Neiss v. Commonwealth, 16 Va.App. 807, 809, 433 S.E.2d 262, 264 (1993) (citing Banks v. Bradley, 192 Va. 598, 603, 66 S.E.2d 526, 529 (1951)).3 Pursuant to Code § 23-234, a campus police officer "may exercise the powers and duties conferred by law upon police officers of cities, towns, or counties, and shall be so deemed" upon property owned or controlled by the relevant educational institution, along with certain adjacent areas, including streets and highways. Furthermore, upon circuit court approval, as in this case, campus police officers may be given "concurrent jurisdiction in designated areas with the police officers of the county, city, or town in which the institution ... [is] located." Id.

In addition to approving the entire City of Charlottesville as the designated area for the concurrent jurisdiction of both the campus and city police officers, the circuit court's March 7, 2005 order provides that "[t]his order shall not limit or affect any other authority conferred upon the University campus police officers within ... Code § 23-234 or any other provision(s) of law." Accordingly, when stopping and arresting Boatwright, Officer Stuart was clearly authorized to "exercise the powers and duties conferred by law upon [other] police officers of cities, towns, or counties," and was to be "deemed" the same. Code § 23-234. This power thus included the authority, like that of the Charlottesville city police, to act "within a statutorily prescribed distance from the jurisdictional limits [of Charlottesville]." Neiss, 16 Va. App. at 809, 433 S.E.2d at 264 (citation omitted) (citing Cod...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Bista v. Commonwealth
    • United States
    • Virginia Court of Appeals
    • December 15, 2015
    ...of both Code §§ 19.2-249 and 19.2-250 are met, venue could lie under either code provision. See Boatwright v. Commonwealth, 50 Va. App. 169, 172 n.5, 647 S.E.2d 515, 517 n.5 (2007). For example, if a defendant was charged with an offense against the Commonwealth and it occurred within 300 y......
  • Lewis v. Culpeper Cnty. Dept. of Soc. Serv., Record No. 2575-06-4.
    • United States
    • Virginia Court of Appeals
    • July 31, 2007

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT