In Texas Practice Series the topic is � 9.12 Authority of Officers Acting Outside Their Employing Jurisdiction--In General

At my last docket I had a defense attorney pop off that the arrest outside the city limits by the city cop won't work any more now that the legislature has "outlawed" it.

I went over in Westlaw and started to ream it out but then figured that with all the up-to-speed folks in this post that I could get a quick answer. It would appear that the statutes on this were not abundantly clear to begin with and the legislature had amended the previous statute with about 4-5 different bills effective Sept 1.

So where are we at on "hot pursuit"?

John

The arrest is probably fine. I'm assuming the arrest was pre-September 1. My understanding of the most recent legislative changes is that they basically CODIFIED (not "outlawed") the authority to arrest outside jurisdiction (city offiers in adjoining county or counties). Make him your regular offer, but he has to waive the issue. If he won't go for it ... hammer him.

I assume you mean tell the attorney about the law, but seek justice for the client too stupid to hire an attorney with class.

Thanks. The case I was handling at the time was a pre-9-1 case. The defense was suggesting that if this were a post 9-1 case things would be different. The Texas Practice article discusses the fact that the law on this is sprinkled through about 3-4 different statutes and so there is some contradiction although the basic scheme is similar. I was just wondering if anyone had done a more studied analysis of where we are at today. I don�t think that the legislature �fixed� this problem in one comprehensive statute but, as usual, did it with quilt pieces. So, did their medicine kill us or cure us? John

Not sure if it helps....there is a discussion of this topic under "before I dismiss" on this forum a couple of weeks ago with some good case cites.

Thanks for the referral. Here is how the post ended.

Shannon Edmonds with TDCAA staff
posted 09-14-05 the following:

"Note also that for offenses after 9/1/05, Kurtz was legislatively overruled by a change to Art. 14.03(g) to grant city officers the authority to make traffic stops anywhere in the county in which that city is located."


I have asked Shannon for the legislative bill number.
John

Just saw this post -- Kurtz decided that municipal officers' geographic jurisdiction is limited to the boundaries of their municipality, undermining a 1987 CCA case called Angel. Nevertheless, under CCP 14.03(d), municipal officers are have been and are still authorized to arrest offenders for several types of offenses outside the officer's jurisdiction; the offenses include Ch 49 (DWI, etc) and those categorized as a breach of the peace (which can include DWI and erratic driving), among others. See Brother, 166 sw3d 255 (TCA 2005) (upholding extra-jurisdictional arrest for DWI). Kurtz only prevented municipal officers from arresting offenders for traffic violations outside the officer's city limits . . . that is, until the Legislature got involved and amended 14.03(g) effective 9/1/05.

Yes - I meant to explain the law, and the benefit of accepting a reasonable offer to resolve the case without the necessity of trial. And to then seek justice from a jury of the defendant's peers if he fails to see the reasonableness of the proposed resolution. The hammer referring to the possibility, no matter how slight, that the prosecutor may seek a greater punishment at trial than the punishment suggested in a plea agreement.

Shannon is just on email right now but did send this to me:

"There were two identical bills that made that change: HB 915 and SB 907. I probably won't get to see the user forum until tomorrow or Friday, due to this hurricane business down here.
-Shannon"


John Hutchison