Defendant was arrested in Massachusetts by a Vermont state trooper and later convicted of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of liquor, in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24, after defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained by the Vermont state trooper was denied by the trial court.
Issue:
Whether a trooper's stop of defendant for driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor was lawful?
Discussion and Holding:
The court observed that in general, we note that a police officer may lawfully act only within jurisdictional limitations except if specially authorized to act by statute or if the officer is performing a valid citizen's arrest under common law. This arrest falls outside the purview of G. L. c. 276, § 10A, because the statute applies only to felonies, and an initial offense of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of liquor is a misdemeanor. See note 6, infra, and accompanying text. In any event, on these facts, the "fresh pursuit" requirement of G. L. c. 276, § 10A, was not met. While in Vermont, Trooper Gerard did not personally observe the brown vehicle being operated erratically. Nor did a fellow officer of the Vermont State police observe the brown vehicle while in Vermont. These facts compel the conclusion that Trooper Gerard was not in "fresh pursuit" of the defendant's vehicle at the moment he crossed from Vermont into Massachusetts. Here, the Vermont State trooper acted without statutory or common-law authority when he stopped the defendant in Massachusetts. In this case the only evidence that the defendant was operating a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor would not have been obtained but for the unlawful stop and subsequent arrest.
Judgment reversed.
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content
Virginia Mediation Settlement Agreement Lawyers Attorneys
The parties were married on October 13, 1995, and that they separated on or about February 27, 1997. The parties entered into a mediation settlement agreement on January 14, 1998, and upon due notice to wife, depositions were taken of husband and his corroborating witness on April 16, 1998. Plaintiff wife filed for divorce from defendant husband.
Virginia Mediation Separation Marital Dissolution Lawyers Attorneys
Husband, an active member of the United States Navy, executed, after separation from his wife, a survivor's benefit plan election certificate, providing a deferred annuity for wife and children. The husband had three options, no participation for the wife, an immediate annuity, or a deferred annuity.
New York Divorce Jurisdiction Equitable Distribution Spousal Support Lawyers Attorneys
The parties were married in Ecuador in 1963. They have six emancipated children. Neither of the parties speaks or reads English with any degree of facility. Throughout their marriage, plaintiff-husband supported his wife and children. He works as a building porter, and his gross weekly salary as of December 1995 was $ 538.74. Plaintiff is also a member of a union that provided him with an attorney in this divorce proceeding.
