State v. Wallace
| Decision Date | 24 August 1976 |
| Citation | 361 N.E.2d 516,50 Ohio App.2d 78 |
| Parties | , 4 O.O.3d 52 The STATE of Ohio, Appellant, v. WALLACE, Appellee. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
R.C. 2935.03 does not authorize a municipal police officer to arrest one observed committing a misdemeanor outside his jurisdiction.
John L. Francis, City Atty., Daniel W. Johnson, Pros. Atty., and Thomas Conaty, Columbus, for appellant.
Carolyn A. Watts, Legal Aid & Defender Society, and Barry A. Waller, Columbus, for appellee.
Appellee was arrested and charged with operating a motor vehicle while his license was suspended, in violation of R.C. 4507.39. Apparently the charge was later amended to operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol. Prior to trial, appellee moved to suppress evidence of a urine test for blood alcohol, on the basis that the arrest of appellee had been made by a Columbus police officer outside the city limits of Columbus. Appellant concedes that the evidence was properly suppressed if the arrest was illegal. The only issue presented to the court was the de jure authority of a municipal police officer to arrest outside the municipality.
The parties stipulated that the arrest did take place outside the Columbus city limits and that it was made without a warrant. Moreover, there is no indication that any activity of appellee was observed within the Columbus city limits, so that application of the 'hot pursuit' doctrine is not in issue. The record indicates that the Columbus city boundaries are irregular at the place of arrest, so that it is difficult to determine the boundaries without the benefit of maps The arresting officer testified that he was unaware that he was outside the city limits when he observed appellant commit a traffic misdemeanor and arrested him.
The trial court suppressed the evidence obtained as a result of the arrest, on the basis that the arrest of appellee was illegal. From the granting of this motion suppressing evidence, the state of Ohio was granted leave to appeal, pursuant to R.C. 2945.67 through 2945.70 and Crim.R. 12(J).
The state certified that evidence was insufficient to prosecute appellee if the suppressed evidence could not be used.
The sole assignment of error is as follows:
'An arrest by an on-duty police officer for a misdemeanor occurring in his presence is not illegal because it took place a few yards outside the corporation limits of that officer's employ.'
Appellant concedes that the general common-law rule is that an arrest without a warrant is legal only where it is authorized by statute and that the arresting power of a municipal police officer is limited to the boundaries of his municipality unless otherwise authorized by law. See Fairborn v. Munkus (1971), 28 Ohio St.2d 207, 277 N.E.2d 227; also State v. Anderson (1976), 46 Ohio St.2d 219, 346 N.E.2d 776, where that statement in Fairborn is referred to as obiter dicta, indicating that the general rule is open for discussion.
The issue is whether R.C. 2935.03 alters the common-law rule by authorizing a municipal police officer to arrest a misdemeanant without a warrant outside the limits of the municipal corporation.
R.C. 2935.03 provides, as follows:
'A sheriff, deputy sheriff, marshal, deputy marshal, or police officer shall arrest and detain a person found violating a law of this state, or an ordinance of a municipal corporation, until a warrant can be obtained.
'When there is reasonable ground to believe that an offense of violence, a theft offense as defined in section 2913.01 of the Revised Code, or a felony drug abuse offense as defined in section 2925.01 of the Revised Code, has been committed, a sheriff, deputy sheriff, marshal, deputy marshal, or police officer may arrest without a warrant any person whom he has reasonable cause to believe is guilty of the violation, and detain him until a warrant can be obtained.
'A constable within the limits of the township in which said constable has been appointed or elected, shall arrest and detain a person found by him in the commission of a misdemeanor, either in violation of a law of this state or an ordinance of a village, until a warrant can be obtained.'
The trial court, following two other municipal court decisions (State v. Vanbarg (1975), 44 Ohio Misc. 11, 335 N.E.2d 765, and State v. Elder (1954), Ohio Mun., 120 N.E.2d 508, 67 Ohio Law Abs. 385), concluded that R.C. 2935.03 does not extend the arrest jurisdiction of a municipal police officer beyond the limits of the municipality. Appellant contends that the Ohio Supreme Court inferentially decided to the contrary in Fairborn v. Munkus, supra. In Fairborn, the Supreme Court held that a municipal police officer may make an arrest for a violation of a municipal ordinance upon a properly issued warrant anywhere within the jurisdictional limits of the issuing court, based on an interpretation of R.C. Chapter 2935 and, in particular, R.C. 2935.02. However, in deciding the question of arrest by a municipal police officer for violation of a municipal ordinance upon a warrant outside the limits of the municipality, the court discussed R.C. 2935.03 and stated as to this statute, as follows:
'In making an exception for constables...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Kettering v. Hollen
...1241, where such an issue was noted but not considered, due to the limited nature of the state's appeal. See, also, State v. Wallace (1976), 50 Ohio App.2d 78, 361 N.E.2d 516.3 People v. Burdo (1974), 56 Mich.App. 48, 223 N.W.2d 358; State v. Eubanks (1973), 283 N.C. 556, 196 S.E.2d 706. Cf......
-
City of Cincinnati v. Alexander, 77-1044
...upon the basis of conflict of its judgment with the judgment of the Court of Appeals for Franklin County in State v. Wallace (1976), 50 Ohio App.2d 78, 361 N.E.2d 516. Thomas A. Luebbers, City Sol., Paul J. Gorman and John M. DiPuccio, Cincinnati, for Boyd & McKew and David J. Boyd, Cincinn......
-
City of Sidney v. George E. Poore
...took place inside the city limits of Sidney. Therefore, both City of Cincinnati v. Alexander (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 248, and State v. Wallace (1976), 50 Ohio App.2d 78, are cited in the defendant's appellate brief, are distinguishable in that both cases involve arrests which occurred outside......
-
State v. Leon Arthur Groves, 83-LW-3159
... ... 28 Ohio St. 2d 207, 277 N.E. 2d 227; also, State v. Anderson ... (1976), 46 Ohio St. 2d 219, 346 N.E. 2d 776, where the ... statement in Fairborn is referred to as obiter ... dicta, indicating that the general rule is open for ... discussion." State v. Wallace (1976), 50 Ohio App. 2d ... This ... rule, however, has been changed by statute, as it applies to ... warrantless arrests for felonies. R.C. 2935.04 provides: ... "When a felony has been committed, or there is ... reasonable ground to believe that a felony ... ...