The state Supreme Court is poised to resolve a dispute in the Commonwealth Court over how to handle the issue of when officers have authority to pull over drivers for suspected drunk driving once they leave their jurisdiction.
The high court granted allocatur to Martin v. PennDOT, PICS Case No. 05-0390 (Pa. Commw. March 18, 2005) Leavitt, J.; Colins, P.J., dissenting (14 pages) Aug. 26, saying in its order that it wanted the parties to brief the issue of: “Whether a municipal police officer has authority under the Municipal Police Jurisdiction Act, 42 Pa. C.S. Section 8951 et seq., to conduct an extraterritorial arrest of a motorist or implement the Implied Consent Law where the officer has no grounds for arrest or probable cause in the officer’s own jurisdiction but grounds for arrest arise after the officer leaves his jurisdiction in pursuit of the motorist.” As Pennsylvania Law Weekly suggested when the Commonwealth Court handed down its decision in March, it was probably inevitable that the justices would want to hear the case in light of Commonwealth Court President Judge James Gardner Colins’ strongly-worded dissent.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
