Back in 1979, Cecil tackled this question and mentioned that the police in a state had their power by virtue of the state constitution and state attorney general and thus were empowered anywhere within the state boundaries. Your link suggests this varies from state to state so I don’t know if Cecil was (gasp) wrong, his information is now obsolete or if he was giving a more regional answer back in the days when his wisdom was a more regional, Chicago-oriented product.
Interesting info in this thread, but I notice that nobody has directly addressed the all-time quintessential cultural expression of the “hot pursuit” doctrine, which is, of course, Smokey and the Bandit. In that 1977 film, a Texas trooper played by Jackie Gleason pursues truck driver Burt Reynolds (who is hauling an illegal-at-the-time shipment of Coors beer back east) across several states, with numerous stops and lots of hi-jinks. Legally speaking, would the TX trooper have to give up the chase at some point and turn the matter over to local LEOs? Or could he really follow him halfway across the country to his final destination? Does the pursuit have to be continuous? If it goes on for hours or days, do the parties get to stop for food, gas or bathroom business?
Is there a federal criminal offense in crossing state lines to evade pursuit? Or to escape justice in another state?
My error: Jerry Reed was the truck driver, of course. Burt was running interference with the cops for him in a Trans Am, accompanied by then-hottie Sally Field.
Yeah but in this case their power comes from having guns and handcuffs, and the fact WI police were not concerned about the incursion Not from any legal basis.
Sorry that makes no sense at all and I’ve lived on several military bases. The gate guards and MPs (or DoD police depending on the base) are not going to say “Good job you made it.” They would hold the soldier until they figured out the jurisdictional issues.
If no one takes off then who is he pursuing? This is not a chicken or egg thing. The initial action takes place by the subject.
Not accurate.
Wisconsin is not my jurisdiction, to be sure, but in reading the statutes I find that in Wisconsin, a “peace officer,” is defined as any person vested by law with a duty to maintain public order or to make arrests for crime, regardless of what state has so vested this duty. See Wis Stat 939.22 (22).
In Wisconsin, a peace officer may, when in fresh pursuit, follow anywhere in the state and arrest any person for the violation of any law or ordinance the officer is authorized to enforce. They are considered to be acting in an official capacity for purposes of civil and criminal liability when they do so. See Wis Stat 175.40(2).
This being GQ, did you have a contrary cite for your answer that there was no legal authority involved, and their possession of guns and badges was the only reason they were able to follow?
This seems dubious. As I understand state laws are written as if the state was a country in it’s own right. I would assume, unless it explicitly says otherwise “Vested by law”, means vested by the laws of Wisconsin, not the laws Minnesota any more than it means someone vested by the laws of China.
IANAL but that’s my understanding of how state laws work. As a foreigner (who’s lived in the US for 13 years) it’s pretty weird and anachronistic, (and pretty frustrating at time when moving interstate). I mean everyone knows Wisconsin is NOT a different country to Minnesota (in fact didn’t you have a war about it, and the “not a different country” guys won). But that is the US for you.
An interesting case. Police officers from Illinois were following a van containing suspects in a burglary. They were in an unmarked vehicle. The van crossed over into Wisconsin and the officers continued following it. The van stopped in front of a residence in Lake Windsor WI where the occupants got out and burglarized the residence.
The officers arrested the occupants of the van and turned them over to Wisconsin authorities.
The trial court dismissed the charges claiming that the officers were on duty but outside their jurisdiction. Since they were on duty, the trial court reasoned that they could not effect a citizen’s arrest. The case was appealed and the appeals court reversed. The appeals court ruled that the officers did not cease to be “citizens” because they were on duty.
Also, Chinatown. Just go home.
You understand incorrectly. Wisconsin Stat:
A cite is something more substantial than “This seems dubious,” or “I would assume.” I have cited specific Wisconsin statutes. Do you a contrary case or cite beyond your sense of dubiousness?
Thanks.
Which implies I suppose, a state that does not have a similar statute on their books does not automatically grant such authority.
(Was Wisconsin getting tired of being the refuge for Chicago criminals or something?)
I’d say that’s correct. There’s a common law privilege for close pursuit into another state but as best I recall it does not grant identical arrest powers in the same way the Wisconsin statute does. If there’s interest I can research the limits at common law.
Obviously the best answer, if there is a question concerning a specific state, is to research that state.
If the guy wasn’t charged in MN, he would have reaped quite a reward by getting to WI, even if he was arrested and charged there. I’m definitely no lawyer, but if I recall correctly, a first DUI conviction is a misdemeanor in WI, but a felony in MN.
And on a sort-of related note, posters in this thread keep saying things like “eluding a police officer is a felony.” Strictly speaking, isn’t the crime called “evading,” not “eluding?”
I expect that this depends on the person actually writing the statute in each state, and what words they choose.
Here in Minnesota, they have it pretty well covered: the statute says “attempts to evade or elude a peace officer”, and the title of that section is “Fleeing a Peace Officer”. So attempts to flee, evade or elude are all crimes.
You’ll be relieved to know there are specific statutes about this.
We have the situation in St. Louis of being next to another state (Illinois) with a number of bridges connecting the two.
There is a doctrine called “fresh pursuit” which lets police in one state cross into the other state while chasing a suspect. It isn’t unusual to hear about chases from one state into another and back where the chasee ends up being pursued by multiple law enforcement agencies from both states (city and county police, Missouri Highway Patrol, Illinois State Police, etc.)
Here’s a Missouri court case that talks about it, when the defendant claimed the St. Louis Police didn’t have authority to arrest him once he crossed into Illinois.
Now that this thread has been revisited, I have to point out that the fact that someone felt it necessary to summarize the plot of Smokey and the Bandit makes me feel very old.
Amusing case, but over 50 years ago.
Liquor was considerably cheaper in NJ than PA. Lots of people from Philly crossed a bridge to buy a load of booze there. The Keystone cops could not stop and search every car that came over the bridge so they sent a car to stake out the NJ liquor store closest to the bridge and look for PA cars that were parked there and then went towards the bridge and radioed the license numbers of such cars that were then stopped and searched. This became known and cut into the sales of the liquor store which complained to the local police who ended up arresting the PA cops for carrying guns without a NJ license. They could of course leave their guns behind but they would never do that.
I don’t know much about these things. I think citizens often have some powers so am sure police do even outside their balliwick. Different police groups probably cooperate most of the time. There is likely truth to tropes sometimes there are rivalries or antipathy between groups, sometimes the grand panjandrums want the credit, or sometimes the most juridicious group makes bones about it.
Canada survived an attack on their Parliament which made it widely known that seven different groups were responsible for security. Someone does need to be in charge and I am assured the situation has improved, and am glad.
Are there any federal military bases where you can just walk (or run) into the base unchallenged ? I rather had the impression they’re all fenced in with 24 hour guards on the gates.