COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Chief Judge Fitzpatrick, Judges Coleman and Bumgardner
Argued at Salem, Virginia
ROBERT BRUCE HAMM
MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
v. Record No. 1607-98-3 JUDGE RUDOLPH BUMGARDNER, III
SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
CITY OF NORTON
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF WISE COUNTY
J. Robert Stump, Judge
H. Patrick Cline (Cline, Adkins & Cline, on
brief), for appellant.
Timothy W. McAfee for appellee.
Robert Hamm appeals his conviction of driving under the
influence of alcohol. He argues that the police officer
unlawfully arrested him outside his territorial limit of
authority. Finding that the arrest was lawful, we affirm the
conviction.
A Norton City police officer observed the defendant driving
erratically within the city limits. He followed the defendant,
who proceeded outside the city travelling on Route 58. The
officer did not immediately activate his blue lights once he
developed a reasonable suspicion that the defendant was driving
under the influence because he did not feel it was safe to stop
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code
§ 17-116.010, this opinion is not designated for publication.
the defendant at that point. When the officer activated his
lights, the two had traveled more than one mile outside the city
along Route 58, but the location was physically within one mile
of the city limits. The defendant did not stop his vehicle
until they had traveled more than one mile from the nearest
point in the city limits.
Hoambrecker v. City of Lynchburg, 13 Va. App. 511, 513, 412
S.E.2d 729, 730 (1992), held that Code § 19.2-250 gave municipal
police officers the authority to arrest within one mile outside
city limits. The defendant argues that the proper way to
measure the one-mile limitation fixed by Code § 19.2-250 is to
measure the distance traveled along the route actually taken.
In this case, the defendant and the officer traveled more than
one mile past the city limit sign as they proceeded into the
county, but on a direct line they were within one mile of the
city limits. After it leaves the city, Route 58 runs along the
city limits before turning away from that boundary.
Code § 19.2-250 states that jurisdiction "shall extend
. . . one mile beyond the corporate limits of such town or city
. . . ." The meaning is clear; at all points along a corporate
limit, jurisdiction extends one mile beyond the limit. This
delineates a perimeter enclosing the city limits that is at all
points one mile from the nearest point in the city limits. The
crucial distance is between the point in question and the
closest point in the city limits.
- 2 -
The defendant does not dispute the officer activated his
lights within one mile when measured on the most direct line to
the city limits. It does not matter that the route actually
traveled extended more than a mile because that route still left
the parties within one mile of the nearest point in the city
limit boundary line.
The defendant argues that even if the officer activated his
lights within one mile, he had to complete the stop within the
one-mile area. He argues that Code § 19.2-77 permits an officer
to arrest beyond one mile if the defendant is fleeing and the
officer is in close pursuit. The defendant argues that he was
not fleeing, as required by the statute, because he never
increased his speed, took any evasive action, or tried to get
away.
Neiss v. Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 807, 810, 433 S.E.2d
262, 265 (1993), held that proof that the officer was attempting
to arrest the suspect and was closely pursuing the suspect
satisfies Code § 19.2-77. "The fact that [the defendant] was
not speeding or was not driving so as to elude [the officer]
does not mean that he was not fleeing from [him]." Id. Close
pursuit "is a relative term which depends upon time and distance
and which must be determined by examining the particular facts
of each case." Id. (citing Callands v. Commonwealth, 208 Va.
340, 342-43, 157 S.E.2d 198, 201 (1967)).
- 3 -
The trial court specifically found that the officer was in
close pursuit. The officer was directly behind the defendant
the entire time that he followed him. The officer observed
erratic driving, which gave him justification to stop the
defendant, and as soon as it was safe to pull him over, the
officer activated his lights. The officer did not complete the
stop for another .3 mile, but the facts support the trial
court's finding that the officer was in close pursuit.
Accordingly, the officer was authorized under Code § 19.2-77 to
make the arrest. We affirm the conviction.
Affirmed.
- 4 -