Boston v. Baltimore County Police Department

³⁹⁵ WILNER, Judge. The issue before us is the proper construction and application of Maryland Code, Article 27, § 594B(m)(l) and (2) which deals with the authority of local police officers to “make arrests, conduct investigations and otherwise enforce the laws of this State throughout the State.” The issue arises in the context of a police disciplinary proceeding. Baltimore County police officer, James Boston, petitioner here, was found by an administrative hearing board to have violated an express exception to that extra-territorial authority by seeking to enforce the State motor vehicle laws in Baltimore City, for which he lost five days of leave. That decision, confirmed by the county police chief, was affirmed by the Circuit Court for Baltimore County and then by the Court of Special Appeals.

We also shall affirm. THE STATUTE Under Maryland common law, a local police officer had no authority to act officially, at least for the purpose of making an arrest, outside the boundaries of the political subdivision by which the officer was employed. In Stevenson v. State, 287 Md. 504, 509-10 , 413 A.2d 1340, 1343-44 (1980), we concluded: “Generally, a peace officer’s authority to make an arrest is limited, in the absence of statutory authority expanding it, to the confines of the geographical unit of which he is an officer (citations omitted). At common law, a limited exception to this rule developed which permits an officer who is in ‘fresh pursuit’ of a suspected felon to make a legally binding arrest in a territorial jurisdiction other than the one in which he has been appointed to act....

In all other situations, however, a peace officer who makes an arrest while in another jurisdiction does so as a private person, and may only act beyond his bailiwick to the extent that the law of the place of arrest authorizes such individuals to do so.” In 1989, as part of the Drug Kingpin Act (1989 Md. Laws, ch. 287), local law enforcement officers were authorized to enforce the controlled dangerous substance laws throughout ³⁹⁶ the State, to the same extent as a police employee of the Maryland State Police, but only in accordance with regulations adopted by the Superintendent of the Maryland State Police. See Article 27, § 298(f). 1 The law provided, among other things, that, when an officer exercised extra-territorial authority, notice had to be given to the police chief, or counterpart, of the outside jurisdiction. In 1993, the General Assembly expanded the extra-territorial authority of local police officers by enacting new § 594B(i) — currently § 594B(m) — to Article 27. In its initial form, the authority granted was exercisable only in certain enumerated circumstances and was subject to certain conditions, including the same kind of notice requirements that were mandated under the Drug Kingpin Law, but there was no limitation with respect to the types of offenses that officers could investigate or types of criminal laws that officers could enforce out of their home jurisdiction.

During the legislative process, however, the bill was amended in a number of respects. The amendment most relevant here was the one stating that “[u]nder this subsection a police officer may not enforce the provisions of the Maryland Vehicle Law beyond the officer’s sworn jurisdiction.” As enacted, and as it now exists, therefore, the statute provides, in relevant part: “(2)(i) Except as provided in subparagraph (ii) of this paragraph and subject to the limitations provided in paragraph (3) of this subsection, and in addition to the powers granted in § 298 of this article [the authority to enforce the drug laws], a police officer of this State may make arrests, conduct investigations and otherwise enforce the laws of this State throughout the State without limitations as to jurisdiction. (ii) Under this subsection a police officer may not enforce the provisions of the Maryland Vehicle Law beyond the officer’s sworn jurisdiction. ³⁹⁷ (3) A police officer may exercise the powers granted in this subsection if: (i) 1. The police officer is participating in a joint investigation with officials from any other State, federal, or local law enforcement agency at least one of which shall have local jurisdiction; 2.

The police officer is rendering assistance to a police officer; 3. The police officer is acting at the request of a local police officer or a State Police officer; or 4.An emergency exists; and (ii) The police officer is acting in accordance with regulations adopted by the police officer’s employing agency to implement this subsection.” The statute, § 594B(m)(l)(ii), defines “emergency,” for purposes of subsection (m)(3)(i)(4) as “a sudden or unexpected happening or an unforeseen combination of circumstances that calls for immediate action to protect the health, safety, welfare, or property of an individual from actual or threatened harm or from an unlawful act.” The exception, withdrawing the power to enforce the State Motor Vehicle laws outside the officer’s home jurisdiction from the extra-territorial authority otherwise conferred, was deliberate. It was added by the House of Delegates to the Senate bill, and, when the Senate initially declined to accept the amendment, the House refused to recede; the amendment was finally accepted by the Senate as the result of a House-Senate conference recommendation. See 1993 Senate Journal at 3052-3055.

Four years later, an effort was made to override that exception. The bill, House Bill 276 (1997), began as an effort to permit local police officers generally to arrest and detain a person outside the officer’s home jurisdiction “for a reasonable amount of time for the purpose of transferring the person to the custody of a local law enforcement agency.” Viewing the bill as authorizing local police officers to “pursue and arrest, outside of the officer’s local jurisdiction, [for] all offenses [,] both criminal and traffic,” the Maryland Chiefs of ³⁹⁸ Police Association opposed it, noting that the extended authority posed a “safety issue” for the pursuing officer. Specifically, the police chiefs informed the Legislature: “When the officer is outside his jurisdiction, he may also be outside of his department’s radio coverage, as well. If this were to occur, the officer would be without the ability to communicate with other officers where the pursuit was occurring.

Therefore, the out-of-jurisdiction officer would be without ‘backup’ during the incident.” Faced with this opposition, the sponsors amended the bill to limit the authority to detain and arrest, other than as permitted under § 298, to persons suspected of committing a traffic violation under the Maryland Vehicle Law. Even that effort failed, however. Notwithstanding the impassioned testimony of one of its sponsors, decrying the fact that “even though the officer may view a vehicle weaving from lane to lane, clearly not under the control of the individual, [the officer is not] able to pull that vehicle over to the side of the road,” the bill was given an unfavorable report by the House Judiciary Committee and never reached the floor. Clearly, the Legislative will was, and is, that local police officers may not exercise the extra-territorial authority granted by § 594B(m) to enforce the Motor Vehicle Laws outside of their home jurisdiction.

THE FACTS With some contextual additions taken from Officer Boston’s written reports and testimony, we shall recite the relevant facts essentially as found by the administrative hearing board. Boston does not contend that those findings were unsupported by substantial evidence. At approximately 2:00 on the morning of February 25, 1995, Officer Boston was driving his marked Baltimore County police car in the southwest area of Baltimore City, while en route from one call in the county to another. He was using the city streets as a shortcut, which is permissible.

As he approached the convergence of Southwestern Boulevard and Wilkens Avenue, which is about a half-mile inside the city, a car came through a red light, nearly collided ³⁹⁹ with Boston, made a sharp left turn, and proceeded east on Wilkens Avenue, initially swaying back and forth. Believing that the driver might be intoxicated, Boston turned on his flashing lights and pursued the vehicle for the purpose of making a traffic stop. 2 He reported to his dispatcher that he attempted to stop the vehicle at Wilkens Avenue and Pine Heights Road, that the vehicle failed to stop, and that Boston “subsequently drove his [vehicle] within several feet of the suspect vehicle and activated his siren and shined his spotlight inside the suspect vehicle to gain [the driver’s] attention.” Although there were no further erratic or evasive moves by the car, it did not stop, but continued traveling further into the City at a speed of 30 to 40 miles an hour. In his testimony, Officer Boston noted that the car slowed down at the various stop signs along the way and was not being driven in an unsafe manner. Officer Boston kept in communication with the dispatcher and asked that the City police be notified.

He continued to ⁴⁰⁰ pursue the car through the City, noting in the Motor Vehicle Pursuit Report that he later completed, that he was “unsure of exactly what streets were utilized.” Although Boston immediately activated his overhead flashing lights, he did not turn on his siren until Lieutenant Meeks, over the radio, asked whether the siren was on. The siren was then sounded intermittently. At some point, City police cars joined the chase, one of them nearly colliding with Officer Boston’s car, and, at that point, the pursued car increased its speed, reaching, in the opinion of one City officer, 50 to 60 miles an hour. For some period, the City police cars remained behind Boston, who slowed down at intersections and allowed the chased vehicle to gain a three to four block advantage.

Boston eventually ended his pursuit and left the matter to the City officers. Almost immediately thereafter, the car went through a stop sign and collided with a taxicab, killing the passenger. The driver was later found to have both cocaine and over the legal limit of alcohol in his blood. The accident occurred about 3/6 miles inside the City.

The pursuit by Boston lasted over five minutes, according to the tape of the radio conversation. That tape, recording the radio conversation Boston had with the dispatcher, with Sergeant John Schneider, and with Lieutenant Kathleen Meeks, was placed into evidence, along with testimony from Schneider and Meeks. Boston clearly reported that he was in the City and did ask the dispatcher to notify the City police department of what was occurring. Precisely what Boston was doing, or intended to do, however, is less than clear.

At one point, Lieutenant Meeks asked if Boston was “in pursuit” of the vehicle, to which he replied “I don’t know. I mean they’re not stopping.” Unable to hear a siren, Lieutenant Meeks asked if Boston was using his siren, and, at that point, Boston activated the siren. Sergeant Schneider testified that “there was no specific advisement of a pursuit by Officer Boston ... for some time,” and he was not sure when the pursuit commenced. He assumed, for the first 30 to 40 seconds, that Boston was simply attempting to make a traffic stop and that there was no pursuit.

Both officers expressed skepticism as to the speed Boston said he was going. ⁴⁰¹ In defense, Officer Boston presented the testimony of another Baltimore County Officer and the affidavits of police officers from Baltimore City, Anne Arundel County, and Har-ford County, all attesting that it was appropriate for a police officer to take some action when observing a suspected intoxicated driver outside the officer’s home jurisdiction. The City officer asserted, in relevant part, that “[a]lthough Maryland law prohibits law enforcement officers from enforcing motor vehicle laws outside their jurisdiction, a law enforcement officer must take action to neutralize the risk to life presented by a suspected impaired driver” and that, in that situation, it was appropriate for an officer “to use his lights and siren in following the driver, to either stop the driver or warn other motorists of potential dangers.” The Anne Arundel County officer opined that the appropriate course was for the officer to pull over and detain the driver until the