{"id":2684,"date":"2008-12-24T11:37:08","date_gmt":"2008-11-18T07:55:30","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2008-11-18T07:55:30","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=2684","title":{"rendered":"CA8: Common law did not permit officers to arrest outside their jurisdiction, but officer has qualified immunity"},"content":{"rendered":"

Officer dispatched on a 911 call pursued a man on a warrant for his arrest, and it turned out the arrest was just barely across the state line. The arrest was under a valid warrant, and the officer acted reasonably not knowing he was outside of his jurisdiction. The court determines that common law did not permit arrests outside of the officer’s jurisdiction, but the officer was still entitled to qualified immunity. Engleman v. Murray<\/a>, 546 F.3d 944 (8th Cir. 2008) (2-1):<\/p>\n

Engleman concedes that the Arkansas arrest warrant was valid and supported by probable cause. Arkansas law authorizes law enforcement officers to execute its arrest warrants \u201cin any county in the state\u201d but does not authorize out-of-state arrests. Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 16-81-105. Deputy Murray cites no Oklahoma authority that would permit an Arkansas officer to effect an arrest on an Arkansas warrant in Oklahoma. Cf. Stuart v. Mayberry, 231 P. 491, 494 (Okla. 1924) (concluding that warrant issued in Oklahoma had no effect in Kansas). Nevertheless, we are mindful that the Fourth Amendment is not \u201ca redundant guarantee of legislatures might have enacted.\u201d Virginia v. Moore, 553 U.S. —, 128 S. Ct. 1598, 1602 (2008). Therefore, \u201c[i]n determining whether a search or seizure is unreasonable, we begin with history.\u201d Id. \u201cWhen history has not provided a conclusive answer, we have analyzed a search or seizure in light of traditional standards of reasonableness ….\u201d Id. at 1604.<\/p>\n

At the time the Bill of Rights was adopted, a warrant issued in one English county was not valid in another county unless a justice of the peace in that county \u201cbacked\u201d the warrant. See William Blackstone, 4 Commentaries *292. \u201c[W]hen a warrant is received by the officer he is bound to execute it, so far as the jurisdiction of the magistrate and himself extends.\u201d Id. at *291; see Blatcher v. Kemp, (1782) 126 Eng. Rep. 10, 10 n.a (Maidstone Assizes) (\u201cNo constable can act under a warrant, out of his district ….\u201d); R v. Chandler, (1700) 91 Eng. Rep. 1264, 1265 (K.B.) (\u201c[W]here a precept or warrant is directed to men by the name of their office, it is confined to the districts in which they are officers.\u201d). Under a historical understanding of the Fourth Amendment, whatever limits on search and seizure, the jurisdiction of the issuing judge and the executing officer is limited, and a warrant is not valid if an officer acts outside of that limited jurisdiction. See Lawson v. Buzines, 3 Del. (3 Harr.) 416, 416 (Sup. Ct. 1842) (concluding that \u201ca constable of the city … has no authority out of the city limits\u201d to execute an arrest warrant issued in that county); Copeland v. Isley, 19 N.C. (2 Dev. & Bat.) 505, 505 (1837) (\u201c[A]n officer must proceed to arrest at some place actually in his own county ….\u201d). Moreover, the Constitution explicitly provides a procedure for extradition between states, suggesting that an officer from one state may not simply cross into another state to arrest an individual. See U.S. Const. art. IV, \u00a7 2 (\u201cA Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.\u201d).<\/p>\n

Notwithstanding the historical prohibition on executing an arrest warrant outside of the arresting officer\u2019s jurisdiction, we conclude that Deputy Murray is entitled to qualified immunity because it was objectively reasonable for an officer in Deputy Murray\u2019s position to have believed that he was executing the arrest in Arkansas. \u201cOfficers can have reasonable, but mistaken, beliefs as to the facts establishing the existence of probable cause or exigent circumstances, for example, and in those situations courts will not hold that they have violated the Constitution.\u201d Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 206 (2001).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2684","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2684","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2684"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2684\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2684"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2684"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2684"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}