How Far After a Violation Can You Be Cited for It

My question involves a speeding ticket from the State of: Washington State. I had been pulled over for an unsafe lane change (totally my fault). Once pulled over the officer said he had also paced me doing 70 in a 50. The are he was referring to was almost 5 miles back. Do you know if there is a limit to how far you can be pulled over for violation? 3 miles? 4 maybe even 5? I could sure use your expertise.

There is no "bright line" rule of law on this in any jurisdiction probably.

I have never myself personally read any case law addressing this question as a possible Unreasonable seizure!!

As long as the violation was committed within his "jurisdiction," he is in what is known as "hot pursuit."

Quote:

---

Quoting BrendanjKeegan

---

As long as the violation was committed within his "jurisdiction," he is in what is known as "hot pursuit."

---

I have to disagree here. HP is when a chase is in effect, not simply following a person.

IF WA police do not have statewide jurisdiction, I imagine they can cross over any border if a crime was witnessed in thier jurisdiction or "borderline".

He never said it was from one jurisdiction to another either.

I recall in drivers ed. or something like that, they were talking about how an officer cannot cite you for an infraction depending of how many miles back it was. Is this not the case?

I've never heard of any such law in any state, or even a law that says the police can't issue you a ticket days later.

I believe you to be mistaken.

Unless there is a specific law addressing this, you loose.

I have never heard of, in any state, a law that says an officer can not cite unless he pulls over the offender within so many miles or minutes? Department policy maybe for a citation, but law?

Quote:

---

Quoting BOR

---

I have to disagree here.

---

That's a rather tight application of "Hot" or "Fresh Pursuit."

Have a look at this article from the Michigan Law Review.

In general, hot pursuit (or fresh or immediate, have what you will) is pursuit (with or without a warrant) for the purpose of preventing the escape or effecting the arrest of any person who is suspected of committing, or having committed, any violation of the law. Fresh pursuit implies pursuit without unreasonable delay, but need not be immediate pursuit.

When you are pulled over by an officer, this is called an arrest. And obviously, you have committed a violation of the law.

But I do see where you come from. However, the same guidelines (generally) apply.

I would guess that if the cop can get the plate # he'll call it in and follow you until he gets a call back with the info and this could be minutes away...but as far as time & distance requirement to pull you over? I dont think there are such regulations or law.

Quote:

---

Quoting BrendanjKeegan

---

That's a rather tight application of "Hot" or "Fresh Pursuit."

Have a look at this article from the Michigan Law Review.

In general, hot pursuit (or fresh or immediate, have what you will) is pursuit (with or without a warrant) for the purpose of preventing the escape or effecting the arrest of any person who is suspected of committing, or having committed, any violation of the law. Fresh pursuit implies pursuit without unreasonable delay, but need not be immediate pursuit.

But I do see where you come from. However, the same guidelines (generally) apply.

---

I see where you are coming from also, but the article you cite is not relevant, it concerns maritime/admirality and is decades old.

However, I will copy from the ORC (Ohio Revised Code) 2935.03, to make both our points.

....may pursue, arrest, and detain that person until a warrant can be obtained if all of the following apply:

(1) The pursuit takes place without unreasonable delay after the offense is committed;

(2) The pursuit is initiated within the limits of the political subdivision,

et. seq;

The ORC, at least, sure, uses the words pursue and pursuit, but also mentions arrest.

MAINLY my point, although I was never an officer, is that if a CHASE is effected, the call will go out as a pursuit. If the officer is merely following a car he will not say he is in fresh/hot pursuit, as that connotates a chase procedure. However, as you say, it is a play on words.

This is also not to say an officer can not leave his jurisdiction for a citation either.

Quote:

---

When you are pulled over by an officer, this is called an arrest.

---

Not in any jurisdiction I have ever read of. It is simply called a Terry stop/ investigative detention, at that point.

Quote:

---

And obviously, you have committed a violation of the law.

---

A Terry stop can be, but is not neccessarily based on probable cause, so a violation of law is not conclusive at that point neccessarily.

Yeah. I see your point.

Quote:

---

Quoting BOR

---

Not in any jurisdiction I have ever read of. It is simply called a Terry stop/ investigative detention, at that point.

---

Appellate court decisions that I have read normally call the stop an "arrest." Some judges agree, some disagree. However, I've never seen it called a terry-stop in case law. Perhaps you have?

Quote:

---

Quoting BOR

---

A Terry stop can be, but is not neccessarily based on probable cause, so a violation of law is not conclusive at that point neccessarily.

---

But an officer who pulls one over for speeding has probable cause to believe that they violated a law. This is because they obtained a radar/Lidar reading. The legal definition of arrest...

Quote:

---

Quoting http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/arrest

---

1.) A seizure or forcible restraint; 2.) an exercise of the power to deprive a person of his or her liberty; 3.) the taking or keeping of a person in custody by legal authority, especially, in response to a criminal charge.

---

I see that you think of the definition from 3, but I normally see it as 1 or 2.

In Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), where the term "Terry Stop" comes from, the detective of CPD had reasonable suspicion, but not necessarily probable cause. I believe that when an officer pulls you over, he/she has probable cause to believe that you committed a violation.

In fact, in WA and FL, the officer is required to tell you why s/he pulled you over. S/He can't just pull you over because you look suspicious.

But then again, there are states who disagree. Notably, AZ and possibly soon to follow... FL. And I do believe that CA has a clause somewhere in the Penal Code that is similar to AZ. Haven't looked into it though.

So, yes, I agree and disagree at the same time. Good debate. :)

I've got to go along with BOR on this one -- at least in WA state. The Supreme Court case of STATE v. LADSON, 138 Wn.2d 343 (1999) clearly shows (see headnote [6]) that "decriminalization" of traffic laws PREVENTS officers from "arresting" someone for a traffic infraction (thus preventing unwarranted searches). Headnote [4], however, does state that a traffic "stop" is considered a "seizure". Oh, Brendan, this case also refers to "Terry stops".

But, returning to OP's original question. I believe the correct answer is "yes" the officer CAN stop you 5 miles later -- PROVIDED (again this is WA state) that the original infraction took place within the officer's jurisdiction. Now, if the infraction originally occurred OUTSIDE the officer's jurisdiction and the officer was merely waiting for the defendant to cross INTO his/her jurisdiction before affecting the traffic stop, that would violate RCW 10.93.070 (unless, of course, it was "In response to an emergency involving an immediate threat to human life or property". In that case, the officer's authority is state-wide.

But, no, there are no limitations -- as Aaron pointed out, the officer (well, the court) can "mail" you a ticket days or even weeks later -- as long as it was "filed" with the court within 5 working days of the alleged infraction.

Just my $.02,
Barry

Quote:

---

Quoting BrendanjKeegan

---

Appellate court decisions that I have read normally call the stop an "arrest." Some judges agree, some disagree. However, I've never seen it called a terry-stop in case law. Perhaps you have?

---

Yes, I have read it as a Terry stop when a car is pulled over also, not just a pedestrian.

Quote:

---

But an officer who pulls one over for speeding has probable cause to believe that they violated a law. This is because they obtained a radar/Lidar reading.

---

Yes, a stop can be based on PC but need not be, only a reasonable suspicion a law has been broken will suffice.

Quote:

---

The legal definition of arrest...

1.) A seizure or forcible restraint; 2.) an exercise of the power to deprive a person of his or her liberty; 3.) the taking or keeping of a person in custody by legal authority, especially, in response to a criminal charge

---

.


At times the definition of arrest is not an academic one, however, as the US SC itself defined it for general purposes, in Terry;


.....It is quite plain that the Fourth Amendment governs "seizures" of the person which do not eventuate in a trip to the stationhouse and prosecution for crime -- "arrests" in traditional terminology....

They have also ruled a prolonged investigative detention can turn into an arrest.

Terry, at the Ohio appeals court level, which I read at the law library before attempts in detail to define arrest, a NON trip to stationhouse, as mentioned, supra.

I am not at home, but I have a case there from the US 6th Circuit concerning a suit that was based on an arrest or was it a detention??

The Ohio SC has outlined a 4 prong test, which I do not have access to now.

Quote:

---

In Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), where the term "Terry Stop" comes from, the detective of CPD had reasonable suspicion, but not necessarily probable cause. I believe that when an officer pulls you over, he/she has probable cause to believe that you committed a violation.

---

Sure, in his mind, or as mentioned, a RS. PC is required for an arrest/Citation, not a Terry stop neccessarily.

Quote:

---

In fact, in WA and FL, the officer is required to tell you why s/he pulled you over. S/He can't just pull you over because you look suspicious

---

I do not know about any lawful notice of why, but just looking suspicious is not the same as a "reasonable suspicion" neccessarily.

It is similar I suppose to when the police say he was "arrested on suspicion of burglary". That is merely phraseology, an arrest can not be based on suspicion.

Quote:

---

So, yes, I agree and disagree at the same time. Good debate. :)

---

I love legal debate, whether I defacto turn out to be right or wrong. I don't know everything, and that is how I learn.


Barry, thanks for the WA citations, you are the MAN when it comes to WA.