Massachusetts,Operating,Intoxi law Massachusetts Operating Intoxicating Citizen Arrest Misdemea
Bankruptcy is a situation, wherein an individual is termed as unable to discharge all the debts. When a person or a company is not able to pay off its creditors, it has an obligation to file a bankruptcy suit. In fact, a bankruptcy suit is a When you work with an attorney, you will have no problem reducing the risks associated with getting your case in front of a judge and jury, or other formal court, when you need to. However, every case is different. It is important to work wi
COMMONWEALTH vs. JOANNE P. SAVAGE.SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTSOctober 5, 1999, ArguedDefendant wasarrested in Massachusetts by a Vermont state trooper and later convicted of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence ofliquor, in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24, after defendant's motionto suppress evidence obtained by the Vermont state trooper was denied by the trialcourt. Defendant appealed, claiming that the stop and her subsequent arrestwere unlawful because the Vermontstate trooper acted outside his jurisdiction and he had no authority for acitizen's arrest.Issue:Whether atrooper's stop of defendant for driving while under theinfluence of intoxicating liquor was lawful?Discussion andHolding: Thecourt observed that in general, we note that a police officer may lawfully actonly within jurisdictional limitations except if specially authorized to act bystatute or if the officer is performing a valid citizen's arrest under commonlaw. This arrest falls outside the purview of G. L. c. 276, § 10A, because thestatute applies only to felonies, and an initial offense of operatinga motor vehicle while under the influence of liquor is a misdemeanor. See note6, infra, and accompanying text. In any event, on these facts, the"fresh pursuit" requirement of G. L. c. 276, § 10A, was not met.While in Vermont,Trooper Gerard did not personally observe the brown vehicle being operatederratically. Nor did a fellow officer of the VermontState police observe the brown vehiclewhile in Vermont. These facts compel the conclusion thatTrooper Gerard was not in "fresh pursuit" of the defendant's vehicleat the moment he crossed from Vermont into Massachusetts. Here, theVermont Statetrooper acted without statutory or common-law authority when he stopped thedefendant in Massachusetts.In this case the only evidence that the defendant was operatinga vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor would not have beenobtained but for the unlawful stop and subsequent arrest.Judgmentreversed.Disclaimer:These summaries are provided by the SRIS LawGroup. They represent the firmsunofficial views of the Justices opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritativecontent
Massachusetts,Operating,Intoxi