Please don’t listen to that advice. There is no such thing as a magical wall that police can not cross. Police just choose to not go through the hassle of letting another town know they are in their jurisdiction for a minor moving violation.
If you do something dumb enough of get the cop that is having a super bad day, s/he will probably do it.
So I guess the Supreme Court of New York is wrong and you are right?
This issued was recently addressed by the Supreme Court of New York, Erie County, in the case of People v. Graham, 192 Misc2d 528 (Erie Co. Sup. Ct. 2002). In Graham, supra, a member of the Town of Amherst Police Department was driving southbound on Niagara Falls Boulevard. The center line of Niagara Falls Boulevard marks the boundary between the Town of Amherst and the Town of Tonawanda, and, as a result, the officer was in the Town of Tonawanda – not the Town of Amherst – when traveling in the southbound lanes. At a stop light, he looked at the vehicle next to him, which was also in the southbound lanes and therefore in the Town of Tonawanda. He saw that the driver was not wearing a seatbelt and the windshield was cracked.
Based on these observations, the officer pulled over the driver for violating the petty offenses of No Seatbelt – Driver (VTL § 1229c) and Visibility Distorted (Broken Glass)(VTL § 375(22)). The vehicle remained in the southbound lane and thus within the Town of Tonawanda throughout the entire incident. Upon further investigation, the officer also charged the driver with Feloniously Driving While Intoxicated, a class E felony, and Aggravated Unlicensed Operation in the Third Degree, an unclassified misdemeanor.
In seeking dismissal of the indictment, the defendant relied upon the very brief decision of the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, in the case of People v. Howard, 115 AD2d 321 (4th Dept. 1985), in which the court determined that “[t]he police officer had no authority to make an investigatory stop or to make an arrest for a traffic violation committed outside of his jurisdiction,” Howard, supra, at p. 321. Absent this authority, the defendant argued, all evidence obtained subsequent to the initial stop must be suppressed as “fruit of the poisonous tree.”
The prosecution presented two separate arguments to support the police officer’s actions. The argument that, pursuant to CPL § 140.30, any person may make an arrest for a felony (a “citizen’s arrest”) was rejected by the Court because the actions taken by the police officer to obtain the evidence supporting the felony charge (i.e., stopping the defendant for petty offenses) were performed “as a result of the officer acting in his official capacity as a uniformed police officer,” Graham, supra, at p. 531, and not as a private citizen.
The prosecution’s other argument relied upon CPL § 20.50(2), which provides that “[w]here an offense prosecutable in a local criminal court is committed… in a town… but within one hundred yards of any other such political subdivision, it may be prosecuted in either such political subdivision.” As a result, the prosecution noted that because town courts have been given jurisdiction over petty offenses beyond the geographic boundary of the town, it is not reasonable that the town’s law enforcement officers cannot make arrests for such offenses beyond the geographic boundary.
While this argument appears logical, the Court noted that the geographic limitations placed on the authority of police officers by CPL § 140.10[2] were clear, and that “[i]t is not the function of this Court to second guess the wisdom of the Legislature,” Graham, supra, at p. 530. The Court ruled that the officer had no authority to arrest the defendant on petty offenses, and that all evidence of misdemeanor or felony offenses derived from the officer’s unauthorized stop of the defendant was “fruit of the poisonous tree.” As a result, the Court dismissed the indictment.
The Erie County District Attorney’s Office has filed a notice of appeal regarding this decision. A date for argument of the appeal has not yet been set
Good read (the case brief). Which ever lawyer figured that technicality out first is a pretty smart guy.
No i’m still right. He didn’t have cooperation from the adjoining jurisdiction and was going after a minor violation.
Saying “So if you get pulled over in the S. Bound lane by Amherst and never caused the infraction in Amherst tell them to eat a dick, they are out of their jurisdiction.” is absurd. Look at your violations. They are more of a hassle to the court than anything. If this were 15/20 over or a DUI/DWI… keep dreaming. The judge would have agreed with CPL § 20.50(2) and CPL § 140.10[2] would not apply.
The ruling is very easy to understand. APD can’t go after you if you haven’t broken the law in Amherst.
However, if you break the law in Amherst then proceed to cross NFB you aren’t magically safe just because you made it to Tonawanda.
So just like Smaefer said, if an APD cop pulls you over on NFB in the section where the center line is the border between Tonwanda and Amherst, and you never actually went into Amherst, the APD cop is outside his jurisdiction.
I wouldn’t tell him to eat a dick though, because he can probably just call a Tonawanda cop on the radio to come write the tickets. Let the APD cop write them then go to court with a printout of the referenced case and get it dismissed while making the cop look like a dumbass.
I agree that is what the ruling was but the law also stipulates that there is leeway depending on the severity of the crime/offense. Seat belt and busted windows is one thing, DWI is another.
The problem being that no one is pulled over for DWI. You get pulled over for some minor traffic violation because the cop SUSPECTS you of DWI. He can’t pull you over for any of those traffic violations though if you’re not in his jurisdiction, and if he does it anyway the DWI is then thrown out since he had no legal reason to pull you over in the first place.
I should have stuck with pre-law instead of IT.
Yep, your right!:bloated: Not like I have experience in this matter or work with attorneysor anything like that. I’m sure you do though.
JayS has hit the nail right on the head, and no you really don’t want to tell the cop to eat a dick. That was just me being a wise ass…
So lets say I commit a hit is run in the S. Bound lane that is observed by an Amherst officer and continue into Amherst. Should I just wave because it didn’t happen in Amherst??
How about I get clocked at speeds that constitute felony speeding by APD but brake to the speed limit right as I cross the town border, should I laugh out of control because he can’t do anything??
Don’t think that would be a good choice on either account.
Good point Jay, it all depends on what the circumstances of the the initial stop would be.
He technically can follow you, and pull you over once you have entered his jurisdiction and detain you until a TOT police officer arrives; in which then you will get what you deserve
Technically, he does not have jurisdiction to “clock” cars outside his jurisdiction; as such he is breaking his “rules of engagement”. He “technically” could call a TOT cop and have him pull you over using the data from the other cop.
And the case brief above WAS FOR A DUI!!! He was initially pulled over for petty offenses, but was charged with MM/Felony charges; but it was not a legal stop/search. If the cop had called for a TOT cop/ECS to assist, then that’s another story.
If a cop observes you breaking the law they can cross into whatever town/city they want…
Did you even read the case he posted? You’re clearly WRONG. If APD observes you breaking the law in Tonwanda they can’t come after you. The judges ruling couldn’t be any clearer. Not only did he say the DWI stop was illegal because the cop wasn’t allowed to pull the person over for offenses committed in another jurisdiction but he went as far as throwing out the DWI too because the traffic stop was illegal. There are probably exceptions for serious offenses, but we’re talking about minor traffic violations here.
Good to know, and Jays should be a lawyer
ha… I didn’t come up with it. Some very good lawyer did. I just read the case brief Smaefer posted. Challenging the DWI arrest because of the technicality of NFB splitting Tonawanda and Amherst is brilliant.
When I was young and dumb back in 2003 my lawer used this same case I posted to get me out of my charges. Thank god that guy took it that far or I would have never got off. The funny thing is that happend a few months before mine…
I learned allot after that whole deal. I don’t do dumb shit when I drive anymore other then just speed…:ohnoes:
Just go to the Chief like you said you were going to. Chiefs hate that stuff and Im sure the cop will hear about it.
it all depends on the severity of the infraction…if a cop saw you doing 100mph swerving through traffic on the wrong side of NFB…you better believe you are getting pulled over…and it will be legitimate
amherst cops are dick heads!! my friend mike and I were riding back from my buddies house on winspear at about 1am(this was about a month ago) and we are on harlem just about to get into cheektowaga when this cop pulls us over(was fowling us for quite a while) asks what we were doing n where we were going. was on the same shit about us being high or drunk. asked to search the car, asked for our license’s never told us y we got pulled over even tho we asked him several times. then he just handed us our license’s back n said get back to the city…