Appeal No: AA-10

Case No: TT97-001548-LD

MICHAEL STRICKLAND,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

This is an appeal from the county court of Polk County, Judge Charles L. Brown presiding. The state charged Michael Strickland, with driving under the influence. The trial court denied Strickland’s motion to suppress certain evidence, and Strickland appeals the county court ruling. This court has jurisdiction. Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(c). The ruling of the trial court is affirmed.

I. ISSUE

The sole issue before this court is whether the trial court erred by denying Appellant’s motion to suppress breath test results obtained following his arrest.

II. FACTS

Officer Jerry Williams of the Lakeland Police Department observed Appellant run a stop sign at the corner of Lakeland Highlands Road and Glendale Street in the city of Lakeland. Officer Williams followed the vehicle for about a mile and a half and suspected the driver might be impaired and pursued the vehicle south on Lakeland Highlands Road at speeds in excess of eighty five miles per hour. Officer Williams activated his cruiser lights and air horn near the intersection of Lakeland Highlands Road and Hallam Drive. Appellant proceeded south to the next intersection, the intersection of Lakeland Highlands Road and Lake Miriam Drive, turned right onto Lake Miriam Drive and stopped. Officer Williams conducted field sobriety tests and placed Appellant under arrest.

Appellant’s witness, David Stroud, a City of Lakeland engineer testified regarding the features of the area where the events occurred. Lakeland Highlands Road, flanked by residential subdivisions and churches, extends beyond the city limits into unincorporated Polk County. The intersection at the corner of Lakeland Highlands Road and Lake Miriam Drive marks the Lakeland city limits. The area to the south and east of the intersection is unincorporated Polk County. Lake Miriam Drive lies within the city limits on the west side of Lakeland Highlands Road.

III. DISCUSSION

The admissibility of evidence is within the exclusive discretion of the trial court and such decisions are presumptively correct and will not be disturbed absent a showing of an abuse of discretion. San Martin v. State, 717 So.2d 462 (Fla. 1998).

At the suppression hearing, Officer Williams testified that he observed Appellant run a stop sign at the corner of Glendale Street and Lakeland Highlands Road. Testimony at the hearing established that pursuit began inside Lakeland city limits, proceeded outside the city limits, and ended within the city limits.

Appellant concedes an officer may proceed across jurisdictional lines to make an arrest. State v. Potter, 438 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). However, Appellant argues that Officer Williams activated his cruiser lights outside the city limits. (R. at 15). He argues that because the officer exceeded the limits of his territorial jurisdiction, the officer was in the same capacity as a private citizen when he made the stop. State v. Tamburri, 463 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). A private citizen could not have performed field sobriety tests or a breath analysis under the same circumstances. Hyer v. State, 462 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Therefore, Appellant concludes, use of the evidence is unlawful because the officer obtained evidence not available to an ordinary citizen by "color of office." Tamburri, 463 So. 2d at 489. As such, the evidence must be suppressed.

Generally, an officer of a municipality has no official power to make an arrest outside the boundaries of his or her jurisdiction. Huebner v. State, 731 So.2d 40 (Fla. 4 DCA 1999). However, an officer may stop a motorist outside the officer’s territorial jurisdiction when the officer is in "fresh pursuit" based on a violation of Chapter 316. Potter, 438 So. 2d at 1086, and section 901.25, Florida Statutes, (1999). In Potter, the officer observed a vehicle weave in and out of a traffic lane in violation of Chapter 316, activated his cruiser lights and stopped the driver one half mile beyond the city limits. The officer suspected the driver was drunk and administered field sobriety tests. The driver moved to suppress evidence of the arrest because, she argued, the officer was outside his jurisdictional limits and had no legal authority. The county court granted both motions and this court affirmed. On appeal, the district court disagreed, and reasoned that the officer was acting within the scope of his authority because the stop was based on a violation of Chapter 316 observed within his jurisdiction and because the stop followed "fresh pursuit." In the matter before this court, Officer Williams testified that he observed several violations during his pursuit of Appellant’s vehicle. Appellant turned onto Lakeland Highlands Road at such a rapid rate of speed that the rear of his vehicle "fish-tailed" and moved "all over the roadway" as it traveled south on Lakeland Highlands Road. (R. at 12). Both Officer Williams and Mr. Stroud testified that the location of this incident is within the city limits of Lakeland. (R. at 11 and 27). Officer Williams observed Appellant’s vehicle travel at speeds which exceeded eighty-five miles per hour, well above the posted speed limit. (R. at 12). Based on the foregoing facts, Officer Williams had authority under State v. Potter, and section 901.25, to pursue Appellant outside the city limits.

Appellant further argued that because Officer Williams signaled the stop after both vehicles left the city limits, the pursuit and resulting stop was unlawful. (Appellant’s Brief at 5). However, testimony established that Officer Williams activated his cruiser lights and air horn in the area of Hallam Drive and Lakeland Highlands Road, within the city limits. (R. at 12 and 27). After Officer Williams signaled the stop, Appellant continued south on Lakeland Highlands Road to the next traffic light, turned west onto Lake Miriam Drive and stopped his vehicle. (R. at 12). By turning onto Lake Miriam Drive, Appellant re-entered the city limits. (R. at 27). The county court reasoned, and this court agrees, that upon re-entering the city, the officer became "re-clothed with absolute jurisdiction to enforce traffic laws." (R. at 39). Thus, Appellant’s point is mooted by the fact that he re-entered the city. (R. at 39).

IV. CONCLUSION

Testimony at the hearing established that both the location of the initial violation, and the location of the stop and arrest were inside the officer’s territorial jurisdiction. The ruling of the trial court does not constitute an abuse of discretion.

Therefore, the ruling of the county court is AFFIRMED.

ORDERED November 1999.

Charles B. Curry

Chief Judge