City of Fredericktown v. Bell

Decision Date08 November 1988
Docket NumberNo. 53497,53497
Citation761 S.W.2d 715
PartiesCITY OF FREDERICKTOWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Stanley Warren BELL, Defendant-Respondent.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Kenneth W. Shrum, Pros. Atty., Marble Hill, Gary Albert Kamp, Pros. Atty., Cape Girardeau, for plaintiff-appellant.

Lawrence N. Koeln, Private Atty., Centerville, for defendant-respondent.

DOWD, Presiding Judge.

The City of Fredericktown appeals the trial judge's adverse judgment on a charge of driving while intoxicated in violation of city ordinance 14-22e. Affirmed.

On September 19, 1986, Officer Michael McClellan, Assistant Chief of Police of Fredericktown, observed respondent, Bell, operating a motor vehicle in an erratic manner within the city limits. After following and observing respondent, Officer McClellan attempted to stop respondent by activating the red lights on the roof of his police car and later by using his siren and spotlight. Respondent continued driving from three to five tenths of a mile after the lights were activated, finally stopping his vehicle approximately one tenth of a mile outside the city limits. At this point, Officer McClellan arrested respondent for driving while intoxicated.

On the date of the hearing, respondent's attorney made a motion to suppress all evidence incident to the arrest including the tests for blood alcohol content. He argued that Officer McClellan lacked the authority to make an arrest outside city limits. The city's attorney felt that the officer was authorized to make this arrest because the offense took place in the officer's presence and pursuit began within city limits. The judge held that the arrest was made without authority based on City of Advance v. Maryland Casualty Co., 302 S.W.2d 28 (Mo.1957) and State v. Maxey, 661 S.W.2d 641 (Mo.App.1983). The court then found respondent not guilty based on lack of evidence and the city appeals this decision.

The sole point on appeal is whether the court correctly applied Advance to hold that a police officer of a fourth class city may not effect an arrest outside city limits when the officer observed the offense and pursuit began within the city limits. Appellant argues that such arrests are valid on the basis of sections 85.610 and 544.216, RSMo 1986, which grant municipal officers the authority to make warrantless arrests in certain situations. Appellant distinguishes Advance and its progeny, including Maxey, on the grounds that they did not involve attempts to arrest which began pursuant to fresh pursuit within city limits and reasons that applying Advance to such situations would allow offenders to escape punishment for motor vehicle violations by simply refusing to stop inside city limits.

While we are sympathetic to the City's position, we must agree with the trial judge that the law simply does not confer authority to arrest in this situation. Advance is the seminal case holding that "police officers [of cities of the fourth class] have no official power to apprehend offenders beyond the boundaries of their municipality." 302 S.W.2d at 31-32. This decision is based on a reading of section 85.610 1 under the belief that it should be narrowly construed to avoid the possibility of serious abuse. Id. at 32. Section 85.610 provides that marshalls of cities of the fourth class have the power to "make arrests without process, in all cases in which any offenses against the laws of the city or of the state shall be committed in his presence."

Admittedly, Advance does not involve a situation of fresh pursuit beginning within city limits, but we find Hacker v. City of Potosi, 351 S.W.2d 760 (Mo. banc 1961), to be instructive on that issue. There, the court addressed the question of whether a police officer was entitled to workers' compensation when he was injured outside of the city limits while pursuing a suspect who had run a red light within city limits. Based on Advance, the court held that the officer had no authority to make a non-felony arrest outside city limits in that situation. Id. at 761. The Supreme Court reversed the appellate decision, Hacker v. City of Potosi, 340 S.W.2d 166 (Mo.App.1960) , but did not overrule the appellate court's discussion of the arrest issue. The appellate court found that there was no doctrine of fresh pursuit for violations of ordinances of a city of the fourth class. Id. at 171. This decision was based on Rodgers v. Schroeder, 220 Mo.App. 575, 287 S.W. 861 (1926), a case where a suspect observed exceeding the fifteen mile per hour speed limit and failing to stop at an intersection attempted to resist arrest by fleeing outside city limits. Advance was also based on Rodgers. 302 S.W.2d at 32.

The above cases demonstrate that it has long been the law in Missouri that section 85.610 and its...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • State v. Murphy
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • November 17, 2011
    ...seen violating an ordinance even if that person leaves the jurisdiction in an attempt to avoid arrest.” City of Fredericktown v. Bell, 761 S.W.2d 715, 717 (Mo.App. E.D.1988); see also Settle, 679 S.W.2d at 317; Rodgers v. Schroeder, 220 Mo.App. 575, 287 S.W. 861, 864 (Mo.App.St.L.D.1926). N......
  • State v. Murphy, SD31067
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • November 10, 2011
    ...seen violating an ordinance even if that person leaves the jurisdiction in an attempt to avoid arrest." City of Fredericktown v. Bell, 761 S.W.2d 715, 717 (Mo. App. E.D. 1988); see also Settle, 679 S.W.2d at 317; Rodgers v. Schroeder, 287 S.W. 861, 864 (Mo. App. St.L.D. 1926).No authority c......
  • State v. Galazin, SC83415
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • October 23, 2001
    ...287 S.W. 861, 862 (Mo. App. 1926). 3 Kimber v. Director of Revenue, 817 S.W.2d 627, 631 (Mo. App. 1991); City of Frederictown v. Bell, 761 S.W.2d 715, 716-17 (Mo. App. 1989); City of Advance v. Maryland Cas. Co., 302 S.W.2d 28, 31-32 (Mo. 1957); Rodgers, 287 S.W. at 4 Abbott v. City of Croc......
  • State v. England, WD 60129.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • December 31, 2002
    ...a police officer does not have the authority to stop or arrest persons outside the officer's jurisdiction. See City of Fredericktown v. Bell, 761 S.W.2d 715, 717 (Mo.App. 1988); Settle v. State, 679 S.W.2d 310, 317 (Mo.App.1984); Rodgers v. Schroeder, 220 Mo.App. 575, 287 S.W. 861, 864 (192......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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