power to arrest and hold fugitive.]
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 him on the ground that he 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 he is believed to have committed a felony in this state.
History: Laws 1937, ch. 12, § 1; 1941 Comp., § 42-201; 1953 Comp., § 41-2-1.
ANNOTATIONS
Compiler's notes. — A few states have adopted a Uniform Law on Close Pursuit.
Others have adopted a Uniform Law on Fresh Pursuit. However, the Commissioners on
Uniform State Laws have not as yet promulgated or approved uniform laws on the
subject.
Section grants same right to New Mexico officer. — An officer of the New Mexico
state police, while in hot pursuit of a person who has committed a felony in New Mexico,
may enter the state of Colorado, arrest such a person there and return him to New
Mexico without obtaining extradition. 1960 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 60-66.
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 5 Am. Jur. 2d Arrest § 72.
Validity, in state criminal trial, of arrest without warrant by identified peace officer
outside of jurisdiction, when not in fresh pursuit, 34 A.L.R.4th 328.
6A C.J.S. Arrest § 18.
Notes of Decisions
Cnty. of Los Alamos v. Tapia, 790 P.2d 1017 (N.M. 1990).
· cites it 2× “His testimony was interrupted by a defense motion to suppress all evidence resulting from the arrest on the ground that the arrest was illegal under the Fresh Pursuit Act, NMSA 1978, Sections 31-2-1 to -8 (Repl.Pamp. 1984). Defense counsel questioned the officer on voir dire,…”
Inc. Cnty. of Los Alamos v. Johnson, 776 P.2d 1252 (N.M. 1989).
· cites it 2× “Defendant appeals his conviction for driving while intoxicated (DWI), claiming the arresting Los Alamos police officer had no authority to stop and arrest defendant in Santa Fe County because: (1) DWI is not a "misdemeanor" under the Uniform Act on Fresh Pursuit (Act), NMSA…”
State v. Marquez, 2008-NMSC-055, 193 P.3d 548.
· cites it 2× “The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction for DWI, holding that the initial stop leading to Defendant’s arrest was invalid under Section 31-2-8 of the Fresh Pursuit Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 31-2-1 to -8 (1937, as amended), and the charge should therefore have been dismissed.”
State v. Nysus, 2001-NMCA-102, 35 P.3d 993.
· cites it 2× “NMSA 1978, § 31-2-1 (1937). {20} The first question we address is whether the fresh pursuit doctrine applies to university police in New Mexico.”
Allen v. Amoco Prod. Co., 833 P.2d 1199 (N.M. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 3× “For instance, the legislature devoted an entire chapter to ancillary probate.”
State v. Baca, 2013-NMCA-060, 4 N.M. 130.
· cites it 2× “During the officer’s testimony, the defendant made a motion to suppress all evidence resulting from the arrest on grounds that the arrest in Santa Fe County violated the Fresh Pursuit Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 31-2-1 to -8 (1937, as amended through 1981).”
State v. Baca, 2013-NMCA-060.
· cites it 2× “During the officer’s testimony, the defendant made a motion to suppress all evidence resulting from the arrest on grounds that the arrest in Santa Fe County violated the Fresh Pursuit Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 31-2-1 to -8 (1937, as amended through 1981).”
State v. Baca, No. 31,442 (N.M. Ct. App. Mar. 25, 2013).
· cites it 2× “During the officer’s testimony, the defendant made a motion to suppress all evidence resulting from the arrest on grounds that the arrest in Santa Fe County violated the Fresh Pursuit Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 31-2-1 to -8 (1937, as amended through 1981).”
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.