Any member of a duly organized state, county, or municipal peace unit of another state of the United States who enters this state in fresh pursuit, and continues within this state in such fresh pursuit, of a person in order to arrest the person on the ground that the person is believed to have committed a felony in such other state, shall have the same authority to arrest and hold such person in custody, as has any member of any duly organized state, county, or municipal peace unit of this state, to arrest and hold in custody a person on the ground that the person is believed to have committed a felony in this state; provided, the rights extended by this section shall be extended only to those states granting these same rights to peace officers of this state who may be in fresh pursuit of suspected criminals in such reciprocating states.
Notes of Decisions
Piotrowski v. Comm'r of Pub. Saf., 453 N.W.2d 689 (Minn. 1990).
· cites it 14× “That statute, as presently worded, does not address the issue of whether the arresting officer may do as the officer did here, specifically, obtain the suspect's voluntary agreement to return immediately to the state of the arresting officer, where the chase began.”
State v. Piotrowski, 435 N.W.2d 573 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 2× “See Minn. Stat. §§ 626.65 -.70; N.D.Cent.Code Ann.”
United States v. Bruce A. Benjamin, 995 F.2d 756 (7th Cir. 1993).
“Minnesota’s Fresh Pursuit Act, Minn.Stat. § 626.65, does not apply here because Wisconsin and Minnesota do not grant one another’s officers authority to make official arrests after a chase over the border.”
Piotrowski v. Comm'r of Pub. Saf., 433 N.W.2d 124 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989).
“§ 626.65. No citizen’s arrest was attempted, nor was Johnson taken before a magistrate in Minnesota.”
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.