WILLIAM GREENE, M.D., APPELLANT,
v.
CITY OF SUNRISE ET AL., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Dr. William Greene sued the City of Sunrise and its police officers for damages from an alleged illegal arrest. Greene was arrested in Plantation for interfering with an officer who was conducting a traffic stop of another person following a 'hot pursuit' from Sunrise. The court affirmed the jury verdict denying Greene recovery, holding that a municipal officer in lawful fresh/hot pursuit has authority to arrest third parties who knowingly and willfully obstruct the officer's performance of duty.
Yes. A municipal police officer making a lawful fresh or hot pursuit arrest outside the municipality but within the same county may arrest a third party if that person knowingly and willfully obstructs the officer in the performance of duty, either by offering harm to the officer or by obstructing without violence, contrary to misdemeanor statute § 843.02.
[1] A municipal police officer may pursue and arrest a person suspected of violating a city ordinance or committing a misdemeanor within the municipality, or a felony, to any…
[2] A municipal police officer engaged in a lawful fresh pursuit or arrest outside of the municipality but within the same county may arrest a third person who knowingly and…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Any police officer of the City of Sunrise is authorized to continue a 'hot pursuit' beyond the limits of the city to any point in Broward County, and arrest upon apprehension any person suspected of violating any ordinance of said city.”
Establishes the statutory authority of Sunrise officers to pursue suspects beyond municipal boundaries
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSunrise police officers pursued a traffic violator from Sunrise into Plantation in lawful hot pursuit under the Sunrise Charter. While the officer was…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
WALDEN, Chief Judge.
Plaintiff Greene brought suit against defendants City of Sunrise, individual police officers and their insurors for damages on account of an alleged illegal arrest. The cause was set for jury trial and an order entered upon the jury verdict denying Greene any recovery. We affirm.
Officers from the City of Sunrise stopped a traffic violator in the City of Plantation after having pursued him into that locale. Such pursuit and apprehension was proper under the “hot pursuit” ordinance in the City of Sunrise Charter, Article VII, § 7.02, which reads in part:
“Any police officer of the City of Sunrise is authorized to continue a ‘hot pursuit’ beyond the limits of the city to any point in Broward County, and arrest upon apprehension any person suspected of violating any ordinance of said city.
“ ‘Hot pursuit’ as herein used shall be construed to mean pursuit of a person suspected of violating an ordinance of the city and continuing without interruption beyond the limits of the city.”
The problem arose when plaintiff, within the City of Plantation, proceeded to interfere with the officer by harassing and threatening the officer as he was engaged in ticketing the traffic violator. The officer arrested plaintiff and summoned aid. A second City of Sunrise officer arrived at the scene.
Plaintiff urged the officer only had the authority officially to deal with the traffic violator, whom the officer had “hotly pursued” over municipal boundaries. Plaintiff, therefore, is arguing that the officer, not having pursued him over municipal boundaries, did not have the authority to detain him. The City of Sunrise Charter grants arrest powers to an officer in hot pursuit, the grant of powers to local officers is likewise granted by Fla.Stat. § 901.-25 (1973):
“901.25 Municipal officer arrest outside corporate limits in fresh pursuit. A police officer of a municipality, when necessary to make an arrest, may make a fresh pursuit of a person from within the municipality to any point in the county in which the municipality is located when the person pursued has violated a city ordinance or committed a misdemeanor within the municipality, or the officer reasonably believes that the person has committed or is committing a felony.”
We confirm the Attorney General’s Opinion No. 073-59 on this problem, in which he states:
“. . . [Sjince the Legislature has enacted Section 901.25 to give a municipal police officer the authority to make fresh pursuit arrests outside of his municipality but within the same county, I think that the necessary implication is that the Legislature intended that the pursuing officer have the authority to arrest any third person who knowingly and willfully obstructs him while in such fresh pursuit or while arresting the pursued violator or while lawfully safekeeping and transporting such violator after his arrest.”
The trial court gave the following instruction, which instruction we find to have been an applicable statement of the law:
“You are instructed that a Sunrise police officer of the City of Sunrise, when necessary to make an arrest, may make a fresh pursuit of a person from within the City of Sunrise to any point in the county in which the City of Sunrise is located when the person pursued has violated a City of Sunrise ordinance or committed a misdemeanor within the City of Sunrise.
“When a municipal police officer is in fresh pursuit or hot pursuit to an arrest, ... to arrest a person outside that municipality but in the same county, he may in his official capacity as a police officer arrest a person other than the one being pursued; if, and only if such third person does one of these two things. Knowingly and willfully obstructs the officer in the performance of his duty by offering to do harm to his person; that is, the person of the officer ; or, knowingly and willfully obstructs him, the officer, in the performance of his duty without doing or offering to do violence to his person contrary to the misdemeanor statute, which is 843.02, while that officer is engaged in such fresh pursuit or is making an arrest of one who he has pursued in the manner of fresh pursuit or hot pursuit.”
No reversible error having been made to appear, we affirm the appealed judgment.
Affirmed.
OWEN, J., and ALDERMAN, JAMES E., Associate Judge, concur.