Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 30, § 2364 (2026)

Arrest in other municipalities

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(REPEALED)
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1973, c. 135, §1 (NEW). PL 1975, c. 430, §74 (AMD). PL 1987, c. 737, §§A1,C106 (RP). PL 1989, c. 6 (AMD). PL 1989, c. 9, §2 (AMD). PL 1989, c. 104, §§C8,C10 (AMD).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1977–1992 · leading case: State v. Carey, 412 A.2d 1218 (Me. 1980).
State v. Carey, 412 A.2d 1218 (Me. 1980). · cites it 6× “The District Court premised suppression of that evidence on its conclusion that the arrest violated the “fresh pursuit” statute, 30 M.R.S.A. § 2364 (1978). Because the District Court misconstrued the pertinent language of that statute, and because we *1219 conclude that…”
State v. Harding, 508 A.2d 471 (Me. 1986). · cites it 5× “NOTES [1] 30 M.R.S.A. § 2364 (1978) states Every municipal law enforcement officer in fresh pursuit of a person who travels beyond the limits of the municipality in which the officer is appointed shall have the same power to arrest such person as the officer has within the said…”
State v. Hatch, 614 A.2d 1299 (Me. 1992). “30 M.R.S.A. § 2364 (1978) was repealed in 1987.”
State v. Fitanides, 373 A.2d 915 (Me. 1977). “The foundation of defendant’s claim is 30 M.R.S.A. § 2364, which provided: *922 “Every municipal law enforcement officer in fresh pursuit of a person who travels beyond the limits of the municipality in which the officer is appointed shall have the same power to arrest such…”
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.