City of Fredericktown v. Bell, No. 53497
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | DOWD; PUDLOWSKI, C.J., and KAROHL |
| Citation | 761 S.W.2d 715 |
| Decision Date | 08 November 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 53497 |
| Parties | CITY OF FREDERICKTOWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Stanley Warren BELL, Defendant-Respondent. |
Page 715
v.
Stanley Warren BELL, Defendant-Respondent.
Eastern District,
Southern Division.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied
Dec. 14, 1988.
Application to Transfer Denied Jan. 17, 1989.
Page 716
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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Murphy, No. SD 31067.
...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, No. SD31067
...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. England, No. WD 60129.
...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 (1926). In th......
-
Roach v. City of Fredericktown, Mo., Nos. 88-2466
...of Fredericktown that Truska had no authority, as a police officer for Fredericktown, to arrest Adams. City of Fredericktown v. Bell, 761 S.W.2d 715, 717 (Mo.App.1988). Even so, we find no statute which makes it a violation of Missouri law for Truska to continue his pursuit of the Adams veh......
-
State v. Murphy, No. SD 31067.
...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, No. SD31067
...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. England, No. WD 60129.
...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 (1926). In th......
-
Roach v. City of Fredericktown, Mo., Nos. 88-2466
...of Fredericktown that Truska had no authority, as a police officer for Fredericktown, to arrest Adams. City of Fredericktown v. Bell, 761 S.W.2d 715, 717 (Mo.App.1988). Even so, we find no statute which makes it a violation of Missouri law for Truska to continue his pursuit of the Adams veh......