officer outside his jurisdiction

[HighwayMan]

And what of this mysterious pain pill?

 

[Zigner]

I wasn't there, but her friend was. He's a respected decorated veteran in his late sixty's with no reason to have to lie about the situation. I saw the video he has on his phone and listened to his account of how things happened that morning. The lab results haven't been completed yet and the incident occured on 9/5/2011, yet they've gone forward with dragging her into court, ordering her to be fingerprinted, and charging her with DUI without the evidence to back them up. I have no doubt that they will not find any substance in her system. The fact still remains that the original charge of 'improper' right turn used by the officer to stop her, was wrongfully given and was out of his jurisdiction. According to her friend, she did not make an improper right turn, the officer was over a half mile ahead of them and didn't even notice them until they pulled along side and he heard them comment on his fancy bike, at which time he fell back behind them and followed for quite a distance before turning on his lights. Again, she didn't do anything that would make him believe her ability to drive was impaired. The pain medicine was an over the counter and not an illegal drug. Any more questions? I just want to know, can a Mesa cop ticket an alleged incident that occurred in Apache Junction? And does my spelling meet your standards now?

1: The officer was NOT out of his "jurisdiction" - merely outside the area of his "home" agency.
2: You DO know that it's illegal to drive while impaired from the use of medication, even if it IS over-the-counter, right?

 

[Ohiogal]

I wasn't there, but her friend was. He's a respected decorated veteran in his late sixty's with no reason to have to lie about the situation. I saw the video he has on his phone and listened to his account of how things happened that morning. The lab results haven't been completed yet and the incident occured on 9/5/2011, yet they've gone forward with dragging her into court, ordering her to be fingerprinted, and charging her with DUI without the evidence to back them up. I have no doubt that they will not find any substance in her system. The fact still remains that the original charge of 'improper' right turn used by the officer to stop her, was wrongfully given and was out of his jurisdiction. According to her friend, she did not make an improper right turn, the officer was over a half mile ahead of them and didn't even notice them until they pulled along side and he heard them comment on his fancy bike, at which time he fell back behind them and followed for quite a distance before turning on his lights. Again, she didn't do anything that would make him believe her ability to drive was impaired. The pain medicine was an over the counter and not an illegal drug. Any more questions? I just want to know, can a Mesa cop ticket an alleged incident that occurred in Apache Junction? And does my spelling meet your standards now?

Go pay an attorney hundreds of dollars for your answers. A veteran would not lie? REALLY? Maybe you will be satisfied with someone you pay. I for one am not going to waste my time on your stupidity and insulting comments.

 

[slwslw]

What the hell bar and grille

The address you gave is also the address for "What The Hell Bar and Grill". The photo from google maps of the bldg is fuzzy on zoom but there are several businesses there, one of which could be a tobacco shop.

You indicated the road was a 2 lane rd.? Google maps shows that Apache Trail (also named E. Main st.) is 6 lanes where the bar and tobacco shop are. 3 in each direction.

If she didn't pull out into the immediate lane, the #3 lane, but instead pulled into the middle #2 lane or the #1 lane that would be illegal, as the cop seems to indicate.

You have to pull into the lane closest you and then use a blinker and travel 100 feet (maybe 300, not sure) before making a lane change.

The address on the ticket is not suppose to be where he stopped her, it's the address where she committed the offense, which would be the address he did in fact put on the ticket.

Also: Cops in Arizona have state-wide felony arrest authority. There was a belief by some police agencies that they also have state-wide misdemeanor authority.

The Sheriff of each county also grants full police authority to all deputy sheriff's off all counties. So a deputy from way up in Coconino County can give you a traffic ticket way down in Pima county.

Sheriff's in Arizona have more authority than Sheriff's of some other states, in that they can take away police authority from city police and they can also give police authority to anyone they want and it's not unlikely that Sheriff Joe Arpaio may have given police authority in Maricopa county to Apache Junction police even though they are in Pinal County.

It's also possible for cities to give police authority to cops in other agencies (A.R.S. 13-3871). I know the town of Guadalupe was considering giving police authority to Tempe cops, although it doesn't matter in your case because the cop "got her" right in front of the bar, even though he made the actual stop a few blocks down the road.

Based on what you've written, and what I've seen from looking at the address on Google maps, I don't see anything the cop did as wrong, but you should see an Attorney for his opinion instead of mine.

 

[CdwJava]

Also: Cops in Arizona have state-wide felony arrest authority. There was a belief by some police agencies that they also have state-wide misdemeanor authority.

Pursuant to ARS 13-3883, an AZ officer may arrest for any felony that occurs in their presence or for which they believe they have probable cause to make the arrest. They can also make an arrest fr a misdemeanor committed in their presence. No mention in the statutes that either arrest must be within the primary political jurisdiction of the officer for an arrest to be made.

The Sheriff of each county also grants full police authority to all deputy sheriff's off all counties. So a deputy from way up in Coconino County can give you a traffic ticket way down in Pima county.

Well ... they can effect the detention for the public offense, but they are not going to cite the person into Cococino County. A local officer would likely be summoned to issue the appropriate citation.

Sheriff's in Arizona have more authority than Sheriff's of some other states, in that they can take away police authority from city police and they can also give police authority to anyone they want and it's not unlikely that Sheriff Joe Arpaio may have given police authority in Maricopa county to Apache Junction police even though they are in Pinal County.

A sworn officer is granted authority by the state. Sheriff Joe can deputize them for his agency if he likes, and he can even tell them to come on and do their thing in the county and he won't have a problem. That's his right. But other agencies have a right to make an arrest pursuant to state law as well.

And I do not see anywhere that a sheriff has the lawful right even in AZ to de-certify or otherwise remove the peace officer status of local agencies. Do you have a citation for that one?

It's also possible for cities to give police authority to cops in other agencies. I know the town of Guadalupe was considering giving police authority to Tempe cops, although it doesn't matter in your case because the cop "got her" right in front of the bar, even though he made the actual stop a few blocks down the road.

This sort of cross-agency permission is common especially when you have neighboring jurisdictions. In my state it is common practice for any and all new agency heads to send notice to each and every OTHER agency head in the state that they have a right to operate within their political subdivision.

Many states do something similar on regional levels if not at the state level.

 

[slwslw]

cdw java

Back in the 80's (past) Sheriff Godbehere was sending undercover deputies into Mexico to track down drug smugglers. The U.S. State Dept. threatened to have him arrested if he continued doing so. He then told them that he would take away arrest authority from all federal agencies in his county (for state crimes, not federal crimes) if the state dept. didn't back off.

They backed off.

A.R.S. 13-3875 gives Arizona Sheriff's the right to give or deny state police authority to federal agents.

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/03875.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS

Later, (past) Sheriff Mack of either Greenlee or Graham County told all federal L.E. agencies operating in Arizona that He would prohibit them from arresting anyone in his county (for state crimes, not Federal crimes) unless they rented a bus and drove to his county once a year to be fingerprinted and photographed.

The head of the FBI in Phoenix told the Arizona Republic that they have no choice but to take a day off each year and do that. The FBI head said that they hardly ever arrest anyone for a state crime, but it's to their advantage to have that authority to take someone off the street until they can charge him with a federal felony.

There've been 2 police agencies in Arizona that were shut down due to corruption by the Sheriff. Guadalupe police and a small hick town in Coconino County after 1 of the Ofcr's accidentally shot a motorist. He reported what happened but his LT and the Chief told him to change the report and say that the guy tried to run him over, so he changed the report but a few months later felt guilty about and told the media what happened. That was it for that dept..

Also: Sheriff Joe Arpaio threatened to shut down the entire Phoenix Police dept. (5th largest city in America) because their police chief told the Sheriff to quit arresting hookers in Phoenix, stating that the Sheriff only has authority outside the city limits.

The County Atty. then said the Sheriff is the ultimate L.E. Ofcr. of the county and does have authority to take over or abolish any police dept. in his county. The Police Chief then publicly conceded this fact and apologized to Sheriff Arpaio.

The Arizona courts (no I don't know the case) have found that the Sheriff of the county is the head L.E. of the county (by virtue of his position being an elected position to be the highest L.E. official of the county), it is the sheriff who decides who can and can't have arrest authority.

Similarly, in Georgia, the (past) Sheriff of Bacon County, Georgia actually did decertify all federal agents from arresting anyone (on state charges) in his county. The Director of the DEA in DC was on 60 minutes saying that he wouldn't send his Agents into Bacon County without having state arrest powers, even though they still have federal arrest powers. The Sheriff's brother was supposed to be a marijuana "farmer". That was back in the 90's or late 80's.

cdw java, as a No. Cal police supervisor, you probably know that Arizona, Nevada, and Oregon state troopers have full police authority 30 miles deep into California. I don't believe California law gives such authority to Arizona deputies or city ofcr'.

As far as jurisdiction goes, many city ofcr's are given federal police authority when working on federal task forces such as DEA or U.S. Marshal task forces.

Arizona police were criticized for carry machine guns in New Orleans following hurricane Katrina. Arizona cops said they won't work there w/o mg's and pointed out they were given federal authority by the U.S. Marshal's service thereby they had the right to carry mg's. whether anybody liked it or not.

I guess the point here is, to the asker of the question, you can't just assume a cop is out of his jurisdiction, unless you really know what his jurisdiction is, and it's not always apparent.

 

[CdwJava]

Back in the 80's (past) Sheriff Godbehere was sending undercover deputies into Mexico to track down drug smugglers. The U.S. State Dept. threatened to have him arrested if he continued doing so. He then told them that he would take away arrest authority from all federal agencies in his county (for state crimes, not federal crimes) if the state dept. didn't back off.

They backed off.

Later, (past) Sheriff Mack of either Greenlee or Graham County told all federal L.E. agencies operating in Arizona that He would prohibit them from arresting anyone in his county (for state crimes, not Federal crimes) unless they rented a bus and drove to his county once a year to be fingerprinted and photographed.

I doubt either Sheriff had the legal authority to do this contrary to state law. If they "backed off" it may well have been for reasons of their own involving political pressure or a lack of need more than any real thought that the Sheriff could prohibit them from doing their jobs.

The supremacy clause would effectively prohibit him from accomplishing this. He could throw a tantrum and make their lives difficult (likely by refusing bookings, assistance, etc. - much like some cities do to the ICE folks), but is legally unable to prevent them from doing their jobs. The feds, however, had every right to stop him from sending personnel across the border ... and woe be the poor deputy caught on the south side of the border by the Federales or worse - the local policia!

Do you have any citation in AZ state law that grants local Sheriffs the ability to circumvent the state statutes?

The head of the FBI in Phoenix told the Arizona Republic that they have no choice but to take a day off each year and do that. The FBI head said that they hardly ever arrest anyone for a state crime, but it's to their advantage to have that authority to take someone off the street until they can charge him with a federal felony.

In other words, they choose to acquiesce ... not because its required, but because they choose to. It sounds as if they consider the ability to arrest for state offenses a benefit to their operations, and by complying with the Sheriff's request they smooth the road with a minimum of problems. Smart politics even if not required.

cdw java, as a No. Cal police supervisor, you probably know that Arizona, Nevada, and Oregon state troopers have full police authority 30 miles deep into California. I don't believe California law gives such authority to Arizona deputies or city ofcr'.

Actually, it's 50 miles and can be extended further depending on the circumstances. And, yes, other non-state agency's officers can be afforded peace officer status.

 

[slwslw]

No, sorry I don't know the cases

I agree that the mexicans would have a field day with undercovers entering their state.

A few years back an El Paso ofcr. chased someone across the bridge into Juarez. They arrested the cop for having a gun. He was in a Mexican jail for 2 weeks before the El Paso Mayor was able to negotiate his release.

The mexicans kept his gun and police car though

Federal Law Enforcement agents can't inherently arrest you for a state crime. They need to obtain such authority from the state.

I added the state statute to my post, but may have done that as you were responding to it so maybe you didn't see the statute that says it's up to the Sheriff to determine whether or not tto give state police authority to the feds.

A.R.S. 13-3875

The Supremacy clause has nothing to do with feds being able to enforce state laws. The Sheriffs never said they could take away their right to enforce federal laws, they only threatened take away their rights to enforce state laws.

 

[CdwJava]

Federal Law Enforcement agents can't inherently arrest you for a state crime. They need to obtain such authority from the state.

Correct, but they can arrest for federal crime. What the state statutes do - under the ARS you posted - is specify under what circumstances the feds might be cross-certified to enforce state laws.

 

[suhelms]

All of this info is irrelevant to my question.
2: You DO know that it's illegal to drive while impaired from the use of medication, even if it IS over-the-counter, right?

Yes, I'm aware of that, and if they were to uphold that law then they might as well arrest everyone who drives. Thanks to the pharmaceutical industry 95% of the population is on some form of medication, from blood pressure meds to antidepressants. She took 1/2 an Ibuprofen. The address I put in my post is correct, but the address he put on the citation was not correct. She couldn't turn left because it was a divided highway and there was no cross road at that location. She did turn onto the closest lane when she entered traffic. I'm so glad everyone has had such an entertaining time answering such a simple question. Well, guess what? the DUI charges were dropped due to lack of evidence. I will go elsewhere for answers next time. You all have a nice day now and thanks for nothing.

 

[davew128]

Yes, I'm aware of that, and if they were to uphold that law then they might as well arrest everyone who drives. Thanks to the pharmaceutical industry 95% of the population is on some form of medication, from blood pressure meds to antidepressants. She took 1/2 an Ibuprofen.

Most of these medications do not impair your ability to drive.

Well, guess what? the DUI charges were dropped due to lack of evidence. I will go elsewhere for answers next time.

Why would YOU need to go for answers when you weren't the defendant on a case that suddenly (according to you) got dropped.

 

[CdwJava]

Thanks to the pharmaceutical industry 95% of the population is on some form of medication, from blood pressure meds to antidepressants.

Even if that absurd statement were true, many/most of those medications are not generally impairing. And, of course, the consumption of medications is NOT the fault of the generic "pharmaceutical industry" but of the doctors that over-prescribe medications rather than actually treat their patients.

She took 1/2 an Ibuprofen.

Then her blood test should come back negative for any impairing substance.

Well, guess what? the DUI charges were dropped due to lack of evidence. I will go elsewhere for answers next time. You all have a nice day now and thanks for nothing.

Good for her.

Guess the results came back negative. Though one needs to consider that many medications today are synthetics and do not come back on a standard drug screen panel.

 

[suhelms]

2: You DO know that it's illegal to drive while impaired from the use of medication, even if it IS over-the-counter, right?

Yes, I'm aware of that, and if they were to uphold that law then they might as well arrest everyone who drives. Thanks to the pharmaceutical industry 95% of the population is on some form of medication, from blood pressure meds to antidepressants. She took 1/2 an Ibuprofen. The address I put in my post is correct, but the address he put on the citation was not correct. She couldn't turn left because it was a divided highway and there was no cross road at that location. She did turn onto the closest lane when she entered traffic. I'm so glad everyone has had such an entertaining time answering such a simple question. Well, guess what? the DUI charges were dropped due to lack of evidence. I will go elsewhere for answers next time.

 

[HighwayMan]

The post was not taken down and there is no reason to post the same thing over again.

 

[Just Blue]

The post was not taken down and there is no reason to post the same thing over again.

Actually it was reported for language.