Pa. Cons. Stat. » 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. (JUDICIARY) / Chapter 89
Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8952 (2026)

 Primary municipal police jurisdiction.

✓ current as of May 2026
Coverage note: this corpus holds the consolidated Pa.C.S. titles only. Unconsolidated P.S. statutes (UTPCPL 73 P.S. § 201-1, Liquor Code, wage payment laws) are not included; a miss here does not mean the statute does not exist. Check palegis.us.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section PA-LEGpalegis.us JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§ 8952.  Primary municipal police jurisdiction.

Any duly employed municipal police officer shall have the power and authority to enforce the laws of this Commonwealth or otherwise perform the functions of that office anywhere within his primary jurisdiction as to:

(1)  Any offense which the officer views or otherwise has probable cause to believe was committed within his jurisdiction.

(2)  Any other event that occurs within his primary jurisdiction and which reasonably requires action on the part of the police in order to preserve, protect or defend persons or property or to otherwise maintain the peace and dignity of this Commonwealth.

 

Cross References.  Section 8952 is referred to in section 12005 of Title 11 (Cities).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1990–2024 · leading case: Commonwealth v. Hlubin, M., Aplt., 208 A.3d 1032 (Pa. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Commonwealth v. Hlubin, M., Aplt., 208 A.3d 1032 (Pa. 2019). · cites it 4× “42 Pa.C.S. § 8952. 9 The MPJA defines “primary jurisdiction” as “[t]he geographical area within the territorial limits of a municipality or any lawful combination of municipalities which employs a municipal police officer[.”
Martin v. DOT, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 905 A.2d 438 (Pa. 2006). · cites it 2× “952 then sets forth the powers of municipal police within this primary jurisdiction: Any duly employed municipal police officer shall have the power and authority to enforce the laws of this Commonwealth or otherwise perform the functions of that office anywhere within his…”
Commonwealth v. Mathis, D., Aplt., 173 A.3d 699 (Pa. 2017). “It is clear from this distinction that the General Assembly could have drafted language giving parole officers broader authority if it chose to do so, but it instead granted parole agents the authority over parolees only.”
Commonwealth v. Elliott, 599 A.2d 1335 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1991). · cites it 4× “42 Pa.C.S. § 8952 (emphasis added), 1982, June 15, P.”
Kopko v. Miller, 892 A.2d 766 (Pa. 2006). “§§ 250-52 (with respect to the State Police); 42 Pa.C.S. § 8952 (regarding municipal police departments).”
Martin v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 870 A.2d 982 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2005). · cites it 4× “42 Pa.C.S. § 8952. [4] The MPJA also provides for statewide municipal police jurisdiction in certain situations, one of which is relevant here: (a) General rule.”
Mckinley v. Com., Dept. of Transp., 769 A.2d 1153 (Pa. 2001). “The powers of municipal police officers are expressly defined, in the first instance, according to a concept of “primary jurisdiction,” see 42 Pa.C.S. § 8952 (primary munici *577 pal police jurisdiction), affording, inter alia, a general power of arrest within the geographic…”
Yates v. City of Philadelphia, 578 A.2d 609 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1990). “In an attempt to avoid this problem, appellants cite 42 Pa.C.S. § 8952 as specific statutory authority to act.”
McKinley v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 769 A.2d 1153 (Pa. 2001). “The powers of municipal police officers are expressly defined, in the first instance, according to a concept of “primary jurisdiction,” see 42 Pa.C.S. § 8952 (primary municipal police jurisdiction), affording, inter alia, a general power of arrest within the geographic area…”
Moyer v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 28 A.3d 943 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2011). “42 Pa.C.S. § 8952 (emphasis added). In this case, Officer Mumbauer observed Licensee commit a traffic violation in another jurisdiction.”
In Re: Appeal of M. Johnson ~ Appeal of: M. Johnson (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2021). · cites it 2× “42 Pa. C.S. §8952 (emphasis added). 4 42 Pa.”
Commonwealth v. Mathis, D., Aplt. (Pa. 2017). “It is clear from this distinction that the General Assembly could have drafted language giving parole officers broader authority if it chose to do so, but it instead granted parole agents the authority over parolees only.”
Show all 16 citing cases →
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8952(1) — 3 cases
Commonwealth v. Mathis, D., Aplt., 173 A.3d 699 (Pa. 2017). “It is clear from this distinction that the General Assembly could have drafted language giving parole officers broader authority if it chose to do so, but it instead granted parole agents the authority over parolees only.”
Commonwealth v. Elliott, 599 A.2d 1335 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1991). “42 Pa.C.S. § 8952 (emphasis added), 1982, June 15, P.”
Commonwealth v. Mathis, D., Aplt. (Pa. 2017). “It is clear from this distinction that the General Assembly could have drafted language giving parole officers broader authority if it chose to do so, but it instead granted parole agents the authority over parolees only.”
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.