Ind. Code » Title 35
Indiana Code

Ind. Code § 35-33-3-1 (2025)

Officer of another state in fresh pursuit; authority to arrest in this state

✓ 2025 Indiana Code: the 2026 session is not included
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaInd. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

     Sec. 1. Any member of a duly organized state, county or municipal peace unit of another state who enters this state in fresh pursuit, and continues within this state in such fresh pursuit of a person in order to arrest him on ground that he is believed to have committed a felony in the other state, shall have the same authority to arrest and hold such person in custody as has any law enforcement officer of this state to arrest and hold in custody a person on the ground that he is believed to have committed a felony in this state.

As added by Acts 1981, P.L.298, SEC.2.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1988–2020 · leading case: Clement v. State, 524 N.E.2d 36 (Ind. Ct. App. 1988).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Clement v. State, 524 N.E.2d 36 (Ind. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 4× “Ind.Code § 35-33-3-1. The Kentucky police in the present case were acting within the scope of that recognized authority.”
United States v. Daniel Ware, 914 F.2d 997 (7th Cir. 1990). “The statute provides: Any member of a duly organized state, county or municipal peace unit of another state who enters this state in fresh pursuit, and continues within this state in such fresh pursuit of a person in order to arrest him on [the] ground that he is believed to…”
Vaughn Whitt v. State of Indiana, 91 N.E.3d 1082 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “See Ind. Code § 35-33-3-1 (stating that a police officer of another state who enters Indiana in "fresh pursuit" and continues in "fresh pursuit" in order to arrest a person who is believed to have committed a felony in the other state has the authority to arrest and hold the…”
Johnson v. Berrien Cnty. Michigan, No. 3:19-cv-00106 (N.D. Ind. Sept. 3, 2020). · cites it 2× “, Ind. Code § 35-33-3-1 ; Cty. of Sacramento v.”
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.