Colorado Revised Statutes
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-3-106 (2026)
Peace officer may pursue offender
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
When any peace officer is in fresh pursuit of any alleged offender, having a warrant for his arrest or having knowledge that such warrant has been issued, or, in the absence of an arrest warrant, when the offense was committed in the officer's presence or the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the alleged offender has committed a criminal offense, and the alleged offender crosses a boundary line marking the territorial limit of his authority, such peace officer may pursue him beyond such boundary line and make the arrest, issue a summons and complaint, or issue a notice of penalty assessment.
Source: L. 72: R&RE, p. 199, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 39-3-106.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17
cases, 1975–2007 · leading case: People v. Vigil, 729 P.2d 360 (Colo. 1986).
People v. Vigil, 729 P.2d 360 (Colo. 1986). “The defendants filed motions to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of their arrests, contending principally that the arrests were illegal because Officers Subia and Cribari were acting outside the physical limits of their jurisdiction in violation of section 16-3-106, 8A…”
People v. Hamilton, 666 P.2d 152 (Colo. 1983). “However, section 16-3-106, C.R.S.1973 (1978 Repl.Vol.”
People v. Wolf, 635 P.2d 213 (Colo. 1981). “Section 16-3-106, C.R.S. 1973 (1978 Repl.”
People v. Ray, 109 P.3d 996 (Colo. Ct. App. 2004). “Section 16-3-106, C.R.S.2003; People v. McKay, 10 P.”
Charnes v. Arnold, 600 P.2d 64 (Colo. 1979). “As such, it was unlawful unless it was made in fresh pursuit under section 16-3-106, C.R.S. 1973. 1 The court of appeals expressly based its decision on its determination that the police action in this case did not constitute fresh pursuit because officer Graham did not pursue…”
People v. Schultz, 611 P.2d 977 (Colo. 1980). “In granting the motion, the trial judge relied upon section 16-3-106, C.R.S. 1973 (now in 1978 Repl.”
People v. Florez, 680 P.2d 219 (Colo. 1984). “See section 16-3-106, C.R.S. 1973 (1978 Repl.”
People v. Thiret, 685 P.2d 193 (Colo. 1984). “Lott and Hamilton , however, are confined to considerations relating to the authority of the peace officer to make an extraterritorial arrest in the absence of fresh pursuit in accordance with the provisions of section 16-3-106, 8 C.R.S. (1978). They do not prohibit an officer…”
People v. Bloom, 577 P.2d 288 (Colo. 1978). “This power is not customarily exercised beyond the territorial boundaries of the officers’ municipal jurisdiction, except in cases of fresh pursuit (section 16-3-106, C.R.S. 1973) or when called upon by another officer for assistance (section 16-3-202, C.”
People v. McKay, 10 P.3d 704 (Colo. Ct. App. 2000). “" Section 16-3-106, Initially, we note that, in their briefs, both defendant and the People seem to assume that the "reasonable grounds" standard of § 16-3-106 is the same as the "reasonable suspicion" standard governing investigative detentions.”
People v. Lindsey, 805 P.2d 1134 (Colo. Ct. App. 1990). “He asserts that the arrest by Denver police in Aurora was extraterritorial and, as such, in violation of § 16-3-106, C.R.S. (1986 Repí.Vol. 8A), was not otherwise justified and, therefore, violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.”
People v. Carrera, 783 N.E.2d 15 (Ill. 2002). “1986), where the defendant argued that evidence should be excluded because the Denver police officers who arrested her outside of their jurisdiction violated the state statute governing extraterritorial arrests (8A Colo.Rev.Stat. § 16-3-106 (1986)). The court found "implicit" in…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.