jurisdiction question, City police on the interstate.

[Fallguy]

6-54-301 is the "one-mile" stuff.

Can't find an email address for one of the law instructors, but I got into a conversation with another officer who is a little closer to remembering the academy days than myself. He said the way it was explained is this- TCA 40-7-101 says that arrests may be made by the following persons; (1) an officer with a warrant, (2) an officer without a warrant, (3) a private person. Officer is defined throughout TCA (person employed by any municipality or political subdivision of the state of Tennessee whose primary responsibility is the prevention and detection of crime, and the apprehension of offenders). There's no exclusion to an officer's powers of arrest under 40-7-101 based on jurisdiction, on or off-duty status, etc. Therefore, it's generally considered that the lack of restrictions is legislative intent to allow LEOs to retain powers at all times and in all places within the state.

Makes sense to me. If you look at White V. Revco Discount Drug Centers Inc. (2000), the court ruled that in Tennessee, police officers have the "full panoply of 'official' police powers even when they are off-duty". This case was in regards to a Knoxville officer making an arrest while he was off-duty. Not quite the same issue we have at hand, but it falls under the same general umbrella of criminal procedure.

This reminds me of people coming to the forum to ask "where in state law does it say I can carry a gun into a bank?" Well, it doesn't, but it doesn't say anywhere that you cannot. Kinda the same situation. Nowhere in TCA does the legislature seem to restrict police powers for LEOs. One might argue that the "one mile" rule hints to it, but then again, the law never refers to officers, but to the powers of the municipality itself (municipal courts hearing cases, collecting fines, etc.?).

One thing we can all agree with... clearer TCA would be great.

I understand trying to prove a negative, but still not sure that is the case here.

Nothing in TCA restricts where an Armed Guard can work, but that doesn't mean if they work for company A they can go all over the state and operate under company A's authroity on their own.

If a LEO truly had authority state wide, then why even mention the 1 mile extension for city officers? There would be no need, right? You may have a point though that it more means enforcing city ordnance etc..... So the kid w/ the loud stereo on the parking lot just outside the city limits could still be cited for a noise ordnance or something.

As far as an "off-duty" officer in the same jurisdiction he works for, I don't argue that at all.

But again, I go back nothing stops them from making an arrest as a citizen. The powers of arrest are all but the same for LEOs and citizens, so not sure what "police powers" one needs outside of their home area.

I have discussed way before TGO when I was dispatching etc... and at that time it we were really talking more about carrying a firearm not arrest. Of course we all know now, the law allows LEOs to carry 24/7 anywhere in the state, so that took care of that discussion. However...one could argue that it round aboutly addresses this, if carrying a firearm is part of being a LEO and a LEO was anywhere in the state, what need was there for a law to allow them to carry anywhere?

Of course as you said, would be nice if things were a bit more clear in the TCA, but then what would you, DaveTN, JayC, I and other talk about?... lol

I admit 39-17-1350 was probably one of those things to just clarify a things a bit better.

[kb4ns]

Very true, sir. Luckily TN is one of those states with decent laws regarding citizens' arrest, so it's really not much of an issue, but I do wish the non-issue was clearer!

[DaveTN]

He can still arrest them and even use force, but just as a citizens arrest....what special "police powers" does he need?

The defense of immunity in a civil suit (Qualified Immunity), the use of city or county attorneys… just for starters.

If I were a Police Officer it would take me believing that someone was about to be killed; otherwise I would stand by and be a good witness or call 911. If the law is what you say; the minute it was determined I was a Police Officer out of my “Jurisdiction” the sharks would be circling.

Like most states Tennessee Police Officers are certified by the state. What could be the possible reasoning behind taking away their protections and powers simply because they are in another city?

Edited January 6, 2011 by DaveTN

[Kegger]

Time to derail this thread since there are so many cops in it.

Is it illegal to brake check an officer if he's so close to you bumper that you can't see half of his windshield?

Not during the day when you know it's a cop, but when it's nightime and you have no clue that it is an officer.

[Guest Jamie]

It's not illegal but it's a sure-fire way to get to talk to him/her.

[Fallguy]

The defense of immunity in a civil suit (Qualified Immunity), the use of city or county attorneys… just for starters.

Got ya, but doesn't have anything to do with the abilty to make an arrest or protect others, again just what may happen afterwards.

If I were a Police Officer it would take me believing that someone was about to be killed; otherwise I would stand by and be a good witness or call 911. If the law is what you say; the minute it was determined I was a Police Officer out of my “Jurisdiction” the sharks would be circling.

If you are not in the area where you work, why should have any more concern than anyone else when seeing a crime committed? Some non-LEOs would get involved, some wouldn't. I do agree about the possibility of "sharks" afterwards. About the same as me being an EMT and rendering medical aid outside the scope of my employment....

Like most states Tennessee Police Officers are certified by the state. What could be the possible reasoning behind taking away their protections and powers simply because they are in another city?

They are certified by the state, but so are many other professions, but they are not employeed by the state.

Sort of back to my Armed Security Guard example... If a guard works for Company A he perfroms his duties anywhere Company A does business. But if Company A doesn't do business with X Merchant he can't walk in there under Company A's authority and be a Security Guard. So instead of Security Guard, Company A and X Merchant subsitute LEO, City A and taxpayers. A LEO emplyoed by City A is responsible for City A's taxpayers (customers) He isn't responsible for City B's area or taxpayers.

Probably not the best example, but I'm not feeling well and haven't had much coffee yet....lol

[Kegger]

It's not illegal but it's a sure-fire way to get to talk to him/her.

I didn't think so, I did it last night to a county deputy who must have been trying to read the serial number on my wheel weights.

He pulled me over and lamblasted me about how I could be arrested for assault on a deputy. I didn't get arrested obviously, but I just wanted to clarify before I drop his badge number along with a complaint on the sherriffs desk.

[Fallguy]

Couldn't it fall under the catch-all of "operating a vehicle in an unsafe manner"?

But I think assault is a bit of a stretch.....

[Guest Jamie]

Couldn't it fall under the catch-all of "operating a vehicle in an unsafe manner"?

I'd hate to be the officer that had to explain that one to a judge, or even an attorney... especially if I didn't write myself a citation for "following too closely" first.

[Kegger]

Yeah, the sheriff has been notified as well as his supervisor.

The guys new, so hopefully they'll just yell at him real good and correct whatever attitude deficiency he has.

[kb4ns]

Couldn't it fall under the catch-all of "operating a vehicle in an unsafe manner"?

But I think assault is a bit of a stretch.....

Yeah, assault is out, but I'd say "due care" (55-8-136) would still apply. But like Jamie said, he's still, obviously, following too closely.

[Guest Jamie]

Yeah, assault is out, but I'd say "due care" (55-8-136) would still apply.

55-8-136. Drivers to exercise due care. —

(a) Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this chapter, every driver of a vehicle shall exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian upon any roadway, and shall give warning by sounding the horn when necessary, and shall exercise proper precaution upon observing any child or any confused or incapacitated person upon a roadway.

( Notwithstanding any speed limit or zone in effect at the time, or right of way rules that may be applicable, every driver of a motor vehicle shall exercise due care to avoid colliding with any other motor vehicle, either being driven or legally parked, upon any roadway, or any road sign, guard rail or any fixed object legally placed within or beside the roadway right of way, by operating the motor vehicle at a safe speed, by maintaining a safe lookout, by keeping the motor vehicle under proper control and by devoting full time and attention to operating the motor vehicle, under the existing circumstances to avoid endangering life, limb or property.

© A violation of this section is a Class C misdemeanor.

[Acts 1955, ch. 329, § 35; T.C.A., § 59-836; Acts 2005, ch. 198, § 1.]

Sounds like that one would apply more to our tailgating deputy than to Kegger, in this instance.

[Fallguy]

Yeah, assault is out, but I'd say "due care" (55-8-136) would still apply. But like Jamie said, he's still, obviously, following too closely.

Ah yes Due Care...that is what I was thinking of...thanks.

But have to agree with Jamie...in this case could almost cut both ways.... guess that is why no one got a ticket...

[vontar]

Wow, I really got something started with this thread. All because I see small town city cops parking up on the interstate watching traffic and or pulling people over on the interstate.