Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 30-A
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 30-A, § 2671 (2026)

Police officers

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
1.  Appointment.  Except as provided by charter, ordinance or section 2636, subsection 6, the municipal officers may appoint police officers for a definite term, and control and fix their compensation. Police officers, including chiefs of police, may be removed for cause after notice and hearing.  
A. Before appointing any law enforcement officer, the municipal officers shall investigate the qualifications and background of any person being considered for appointment. This includes investigating the applicant's abilities, reputation for truthfulness and respect for the law.   [PL 1987, c. 737, Pt. A, §2 (NEW); PL 1987, c. 737, Pt. C, §106 (NEW); PL 1989, c. 6 (AMD); PL 1989, c. 9, §2 (AMD); PL 1989, c. 104, Pt. C, §§8, 10 (AMD).]
B. An appointed law enforcement officer is subject to the training requirements of Title 25, chapter 341.   [PL 1993, c. 349, §64 (AMD).]
C. Notwithstanding section 2526, residency in the State is not a condition of initial or continued appointment as a municipal police officer.   [PL 1989, c. 279, §1 (NEW).]
[PL 1993, c. 349, §64 (AMD).]
2.  Powers.  Police officers may serve criminal and traffic infraction processes and arrest and prosecute offenders of the law. A police officer has all the statutory powers of a constable, unless limited by charter or ordinance. No police officer has any authority in criminal or traffic infraction matters beyond the limits of the municipality in which the officer is appointed, except to:  
A. Recapture a prisoner whom the officer has arrested and who has escaped;   [PL 1987, c. 737, Pt. A, §2 (NEW); PL 1987, c. 737, Pt. C, §106 (NEW); PL 1989, c. 6 (AMD); PL 1989, c. 9, §2 (AMD); PL 1989, c. 104, Pt. C, §§8, 10 (AMD).]
B. Take a person before the District Court;   [PL 1987, c. 737, Pt. A, §2 (NEW); PL 1987, c. 737, Pt. C, §106 (NEW); PL 1989, c. 6 (AMD); PL 1989, c. 9, §2 (AMD); PL 1989, c. 104, Pt. C, §§8, 10 (AMD).]
C. Execute a mittimus given to the officer by the District Court;   [PL 1987, c. 737, Pt. A, §2 (NEW); PL 1987, c. 737, Pt. C, §106 (NEW); PL 1989, c. 6 (AMD); PL 1989, c. 9, §2 (AMD); PL 1989, c. 104, Pt. C, §§8, 10 (AMD).]
D. Pursue a person who has gone into another municipality and for whose arrest the officer has a warrant;   [PL 1987, c. 737, Pt. A, §2 (NEW); PL 1987, c. 737, Pt. C, §106 (NEW); PL 1989, c. 6 (AMD); PL 1989, c. 9, §2 (AMD); PL 1989, c. 104, Pt. C, §§8, 10 (AMD).]
E. Arrest a person who travels beyond the limits of the municipality in which the officer is appointed when in fresh pursuit of that person. This paragraph applies to all crimes and traffic infractions. As used in this paragraph:  
(1) With respect to Class A, Class B and Class C crimes, the term "fresh pursuit" is defined in Title 15, section 152; and  
(2) With respect to Class D and Class E crimes and traffic infractions, "fresh pursuit" means instant pursuit of a person with intent to apprehend; or   [PL 1989, c. 104, Pt. C, §§8, 10 (AMD); PL 1989, c. 104, Pt. D, §6 (AMD).]
F. As provided for in section 2674.   [PL 1989, c. 104, Pt. A, §23 (AMD); PL 1989, c. 104, Pt. C, §§8, 10 (AMD).]
[PL 1989, c. 104, Pt. A, §23 (AMD); PL 1989, c. 104, Pt. C, §§8, 10 (AMD); PL 1989, c. 104, Pt. D, §6 (AMD).]
2-A.  Optional powers.  Notwithstanding subsection 2, municipal officers may authorize a municipality's police officers who have met the requirements of Title 25, section 2804‑C to perform any of the acts described in Title 17‑A, section 15 while the police officers are outside the jurisdiction in which they are appointed if, when possible, the law enforcement agency of a foreign municipality in which the arrest is to be made is notified in advance or, when not possible, the law enforcement agency of the foreign municipality in which the arrest has been made is notified immediately after the arrest.  
A.   [PL 2003, c. 233, §4 (RP).]
B.   [PL 2003, c. 233, §4 (RP).]
[PL 2003, c. 233, §4 (AMD).]
2-B.  Liability.  When a municipal police officer makes an arrest, as authorized in subsection 2‑A or subsection 4, outside of jurisdictional limits of the municipality in which the police officer is appointed, that police officer has the same immunity from tort liability and all of the pension, relief, disability, workers' compensation, insurance and any other benefits the police officer enjoys while performing duties within the police officer's appointing municipality.  
[PL 2005, c. 320, §1 (AMD).]
3.  Representation of the municipality in District Court.  The municipal officers may authorize a law enforcement officer certified by the Maine Criminal Justice Academy, under Title 25, section 2803‑A, subsection 1, to represent the municipality in District Court in the prosecution of alleged violations of ordinances which the officer may enforce. Under this subsection, the municipal officers may delegate their power to authorize law enforcement officers to represent the municipality to the municipality's full-time chief of police.  
[RR 2007, c. 1, §16 (COR).]
4.  Multijurisdictional crimes.  If there is probable cause to believe that more than one theft, forgery or negotiation of a worthless instrument committed pursuant to one scheme or course of conduct by the same or several persons has occurred in more than one municipal jurisdiction, a police officer in a municipality in which at least one of the thefts, forgeries or negotiations of worthless instruments was committed may investigate and assist in the prosecution of all the related thefts, forgeries or negotiations of worthless instruments, with the express authorization of the police officer's municipal officers.  
[PL 2005, c. 320, §2 (NEW).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1987, c. 737, §§A2,C106 (NEW). PL 1989, c. 6 (AMD). PL 1989, c. 9, §2 (AMD). PL 1989, c. 104, §§A23,C8,C10 D6 (AMD). PL 1989, c. 279, §1 (AMD). PL 1993, c. 349, §64 (AMD). PL 1993, c. 594, §2 (AMD). PL 2003, c. 233, §4 (AMD). PL 2005, c. 320, §§1,2 (AMD). RR 2007, c. 1, §16 (COR).
The Revisor's Office cannot provide legal advice or interpretation of Maine law to the public.
If you need legal advice, please consult a qualified attorney.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1990–2023 · leading case: State of Maine v. Ryan Turner, 2017 ME 185 (Me. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State of Maine v. Ryan Turner, 2017 ME 185 (Me. 2017). · cites it 4× “Turner appeals from the conviction, arguing that the motion court (Harden, J.) erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the Winslow officer’s extraterritorial stop of his vehicle because the officer exceeded the authority granted to him by 30-A M.”
Ryan v. Town of Camden, 582 A.2d 973 (Me. 1990). · cites it 2× “737 (effective March 1, 1989) and replaced by 30-A M.R.S.A. § 2671 (Supp.1989). Both statutes provide that police officers “may be removed for cause after notice and hearing.”
Moore v. City of Lewiston, 596 A.2d 612 (Me. 1991). · cites it 2× “30-A M.R.S.A. § 2671 (Pamph. 1990) (replacing former 30 M.”
State v. Menard, 2003 ME 69 (Me. 2003). · cites it 3× “1 30-A M.R.S.A. § 2671(2) (1996). The statute defines “fresh pursuit” as “instant pursuit of a person with intent to apprehend” with regards to Class D or Class E crimes.”
State v. Rideout, 761 A.2d 288 (Me. 2000). · cites it 3× “VIOLATION OF FRESH PURSUIT STATUTE [¶ 7] Chief Bubar stopped Ride-out in a municipality in which Chief Bubar was not appointed as a law enforcement officer; therefore, the stop violated the fresh pursuit statute, 30-A M.R.S.A. § 2671. Rideout contends that the statutory…”
State v. Jolin, 639 A.2d 1062 (Me. 1994). · cites it 2× “30-A M.R.S.A § 2671(2) (Supp.1992). 1 We decline to adopt a 'per se rule that would require the exclusion of evidence obtained in connection with an extraterritorial arrest.”
State v. Pike, 642 A.2d 145 (Me. 1994). · cites it 2× “Assuming, without deciding, that the Officer violated 30-A M.R.S.A. § 2671(2), we find no cleat-error in the decision of the trial court not to suppress the evidence obtained.”
Pouliot v. Town of Fairfield, 226 F. Supp. 2d 233 (D. Me. 2002). “See 30-A M.R.S.A. §§ 2671. Having determined that Pouliot had a property interest in his position, I must now determine if he has shown that he was denied the process due to him.”
Moen v. Town of Fairfield, 1998 ME 135 (Me. 1998). “See 30-A M.R.S.A.§ 2671(1) 1996. 5 . See 26 M.”
State v. Hatch, 614 A.2d 1299 (Me. 1992). “Hatch’s argument is based upon 30-A M.R.S.A. § 2671(2) (Supp. 1992) that provides, in pertinent part, that “No police officer has any authority in criminal or traffic infraction matters beyond the limits in which the officer is appointed.”
State of Maine v. Dale M. Brackett, 2023 ME 51 (Me. 2023). “§ 101(30); see also 30-A M.R.S. § 2671(2) (2023) (establishing the power of municipal police officers to “serve criminal and traffic infraction processes and arrest and prosecute offenders of the law”).”
State of Maine v. Ryan Turner, 2017 ME 185 (Me. 2017). · cites it 5× “) erred 2 in denying his motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the Winslow officer’s extraterritorial stop of his vehicle because the officer exceeded the authority granted to him by 30-A M.”
Show all 21 citing cases →
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 30-A, § 2671(1) — 2 cases
Ryan v. Town of Camden, 582 A.2d 973 (Me. 1990). “737 (effective March 1, 1989) and replaced by 30-A M.R.S.A. § 2671 (Supp.1989). Both statutes provide that police officers “may be removed for cause after notice and hearing.”
Moen v. Town of Fairfield, 1998 ME 135 (Me. 1998). “See 30-A M.R.S.A.§ 2671(1) 1996. 5 . See 26 M.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 30-A, § 2671(2) — 12 cases
State v. Menard, 2003 ME 69 (Me. 2003). “1 30-A M.R.S.A. § 2671(2) (1996). The statute defines “fresh pursuit” as “instant pursuit of a person with intent to apprehend” with regards to Class D or Class E crimes.”
State v. Jolin, 639 A.2d 1062 (Me. 1994). “30-A M.R.S.A § 2671(2) (Supp.1992). 1 We decline to adopt a 'per se rule that would require the exclusion of evidence obtained in connection with an extraterritorial arrest.”
State v. Pike, 642 A.2d 145 (Me. 1994). “Assuming, without deciding, that the Officer violated 30-A M.R.S.A. § 2671(2), we find no cleat-error in the decision of the trial court not to suppress the evidence obtained.”
State of Maine v. Ryan Turner, 2017 ME 185 (Me. 2017). “Turner appeals from the conviction, arguing that the motion court (Harden, J.) erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the Winslow officer’s extraterritorial stop of his vehicle because the officer exceeded the authority granted to him by 30-A M.”
State v. Rideout, 761 A.2d 288 (Me. 2000). “VIOLATION OF FRESH PURSUIT STATUTE [¶ 7] Chief Bubar stopped Ride-out in a municipality in which Chief Bubar was not appointed as a law enforcement officer; therefore, the stop violated the fresh pursuit statute, 30-A M.R.S.A. § 2671. Rideout contends that the statutory…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 30-A, § 2671(2)(B)(2) — 1 case
State of Maine v. Pearson (Me. Super. Ct 2002).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 30-A, § 2671(2)(E) — 3 cases
State of Maine v. Ryan Turner, 2017 ME 185 (Me. 2017). “Turner appeals from the conviction, arguing that the motion court (Harden, J.) erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the Winslow officer’s extraterritorial stop of his vehicle because the officer exceeded the authority granted to him by 30-A M.”
State of Maine v. Ryan Turner, 2017 ME 185 (Me. 2017). “) erred 2 in denying his motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the Winslow officer’s extraterritorial stop of his vehicle because the officer exceeded the authority granted to him by 30-A M.”
State of Maine v. Pearson (Me. Super. Ct 2002).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 30-A, § 2671(2)(E)(2) — 3 cases
State v. Menard, 2003 ME 69 (Me. 2003). “1 30-A M.R.S.A. § 2671(2) (1996). The statute defines “fresh pursuit” as “instant pursuit of a person with intent to apprehend” with regards to Class D or Class E crimes.”
State of Maine v. Biondi (Me. Super. Ct 2003).
State of Maine v. Cross (Me. Super. Ct 2007).
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.