§ 8953. Statewide municipal police jurisdiction.
(a) General rule.--Any duly employed municipal police officer who is within this Commonwealth, but beyond
the territorial limits of his primary jurisdiction, shall have the power and authority
to enforce the laws of this Commonwealth or otherwise perform the functions of that
office as if enforcing those laws or performing those functions within the territorial
limits of his primary jurisdiction in the following cases:
(1) Where the officer is acting pursuant to an order issued by a court of record or an
order issued by a district magistrate whose magisterial district is located within
the judicial district wherein the officer's primary jurisdiction is situated, or where
the officer is otherwise acting pursuant to the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules
of Criminal Procedure, except that the service of an arrest or search warrant shall
require the consent of the chief law enforcement officer, or a person authorized by
him to give consent, of the organized law enforcement agency which regularly provides
primary police services in the municipality wherein the warrant is to be served.
(2) Where the officer is in hot pursuit of any person for any offense which was committed,
or which he has probable cause to believe was committed, within his primary jurisdiction
and for which offense the officer continues in fresh pursuit of the person after the
commission of the offense.
(3) Where the officer:
(i) has been requested to aid or assist a Federal, State or local law enforcement officer
or park police officer;
(ii) has probable cause to believe that a Federal, State or local law enforcement officer
or park police officer is in need of aid or assistance; or
(iii) has been requested to participate in a Federal, State or local task force and participation
has been approved by the police department of the municipality which employs the officer.
(4) Where the officer has obtained the prior consent of the chief law enforcement officer,
or a person authorized by him to give consent, of the organized law enforcement agency
which provides primary police services to a political subdivision which is beyond
that officer's primary jurisdiction to enter the other jurisdiction for the purpose
of conducting official duties which arise from official matters within his primary
jurisdiction.
(5) Where the officer is on official business and views an offense, or has probable cause
to believe that an offense has been committed, and makes a reasonable effort to identify
himself as a police officer and which offense is a felony, misdemeanor, breach of
the peace or other act which presents an immediate clear and present danger to persons
or property.
(6) Where the officer views an offense which is a felony, or has probable cause to believe
that an offense which is a felony has been committed, and makes a reasonable effort
to identify himself as a police officer.
(b) Limitation.--Nothing contained in subsection (a) shall be deemed to extend or otherwise enlarge
a municipal police officer's power and authority to arrest any person for an offense
unless specifically authorized by law.
(c) Relinquishing authority.--Whenever a municipal police officer exercises any power or authority over any person
or event pursuant to the provisions of subsection (a)(3), (4), (5) or (6), the officer
shall relinquish authority and control over any such person or event upon the request
of the chief law enforcement officer, or a person authorized by him to make the request,
of the organized law enforcement agency which regularly provides primary police services
in the municipality.
(d) Immunities and benefits preserved.--Any municipal police officer who exercises any power or authority granted under this
section, and the employing municipality of the police officer, shall have the same
immunities from liability as would be applicable if the actions were performed within
the territorial boundaries of the officer's primary jurisdiction and the police officer
shall be entitled to the same benefits of employment as the officer would possess
if acting solely within his primary jurisdiction. However, when any municipal police
officer is responding to a request for aid or assistance from a State law enforcement
officer pursuant to subsection (a)(3) for purposes of workers' compensation and allocation
of liability for any death, injury or damage he may cause in the performance of his
requested duties, he shall be considered to be an employee of the Commonwealth. All
costs incurred by any municipality in the defense of lawsuits arising from the performance
of any requested duties shall be borne by the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth shall
provide attorneys to defend any lawsuits arising under this section. For purposes
of compensation, pension or indemnity fund rights and other rights and benefits to
which he may be entitled, the municipal officer shall be considered to be performing
his duties in his normal capacity as a municipal law enforcement officer. Nothing
in this section shall be construed to restrict the authority of any municipality to
limit the exercise of any power or authority conferred on its police by this section.
(e) Existing and future municipal police service agreements preserved.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to restrict the authority of any municipality
to maintain current or to enter into new cooperative police service agreements with
another municipality or municipalities for purposes including, but not limited to,
describing conditions of mutual aid, assigning liability and determining appropriate
costs of these cooperative efforts.
(July 1, 1987, P.L.180, No.21, eff. imd.; Dec. 22, 1989, P.L.730, No.100, eff. 60
days; July 2, 2019, P.L.375, No.58, eff. imd.)
2019 Amendment. Act 58 amended subsec. (a)(3). See sections 4 and 5 of Act 58 in the appendix to this
title for special provisions relating to applicability and General Assembly.
1989 Amendment. Act 100 amended subsec. (d).
Cross References. Section 8953 is referred to in sections 8953.1, 8953.2 of this title; section 10A06
of Title 8 (Boroughs and Incorporated Towns); section 12005 of Title 11 (Cities);
section 711 of Title 51 (Military and Veterans Affairs); sections 102, 4571 of Title
75 (Vehicles).
Notes of Decisions
Commonwealth v. Hlubin, M., Aplt., 208 A.3d 1032 (Pa. 2019).
· cites it 25× “42 Pa.C.S. § 8953(a). This Court has stressed that section 8953(a) extends the authority of police officers to exercise official police duties outside of their primary jurisdictions only in these six specific and limited circumstances.”
Martin v. DOT, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 905 A.2d 438 (Pa. 2006).
· cites it 8× “42 Pa.C.S. § 8953. The trial court concluded that Officer Sollenberger's arrest of appellant was not an authorized extra-jurisdictional arrest under subsection (a)(2)'s hot pursuit provision because probable cause to arrest her did not arise while she was in the officer's…”
Commonwealth v. Firman, 813 A.2d 643 (Pa. 2002).
· cites it 14× “The Commonwealth maintains that the Act's extraterritorial term should be given the same effect as that of the Municipal Police Jurisdiction Act, see 42 Pa.C.S. § 8953, which permits municipal officers to make extraterritorial arrests, inter alia, for offenses involving breach…”
Com. v. Hobel, S., 275 A.3d 1049 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2022).
· cites it 6× “42 Pa.C.S. § 8953(a)(1)-(6). Yet when a police officer’s extraterritorial actions do not fall within one of these exceptions, suppression is not automatically appropriate.”
Commonwealth v. Peters, 965 A.2d 222 (Pa. 2009).
· cites it 10× “" 42 Pa.C.S. § 8953(a). [8] Given our disposition, we do not reach or adopt the panel's alternative holding regarding the application of the exclusionary rule.”
Commonwealth v. Peters, 915 A.2d 1213 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2007).
· cites it 7× “Appellant then filed this appeal raising the following question for our review: Whether the extraterritoi'ial arrest of the Defendant, by the Sugarcreek Borough Police Department while in the City of Franklin, was unlawful as the Sugarcreek Borough Police were not covered by any…”
Commonwealth v. Mendenhall, 715 A.2d 1117 (Pa. 1998).
· cites it 6× “Preliminarily, we must determine whether the record supports the suppression court's legal conclusion that Appellee was subjected to an investigative detention.”
Commonwealth v. McCandless, 648 A.2d 309 (Pa. 1994).
· cites it 8× “This conclusion rested on a provision of the Municipal Police Jurisdiction Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 8953(a), which sets forth the circumstances *289 under which a municipal police officer can pursue a suspect into a neighboring municipality: (a) General rule.”
Commonwealth v. Hlubin, 165 A.3d 1 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017).
· cites it 5× “” 42 Pa.C.S. § 8953(a). Specifically, the MPJA enumerates a discrete set of circumstances under which a municipal police officer may exercise extra-territorial authority.”
McKinley v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., 739 A.2d 1134 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1999).
· cites it 10× “Subchapter D of Chapter 89 of the Judicial Code includes Section 8953, as amended, 42 Pa.C.S. § 8953, relating to statewide municipal police jurisdiction.”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8953(a) — 11 cases
Commonwealth v. Hlubin, M., Aplt., 208 A.3d 1032 (Pa. 2019).
“42 Pa.C.S. § 8953(a). This Court has stressed that section 8953(a) extends the authority of police officers to exercise official police duties outside of their primary jurisdictions only in these six specific and limited circumstances.”
Commonwealth v. Peters, 965 A.2d 222 (Pa. 2009).
“" 42 Pa.C.S. § 8953(a). [8] Given our disposition, we do not reach or adopt the panel's alternative holding regarding the application of the exclusionary rule.”
Commonwealth v. McCandless, 648 A.2d 309 (Pa. 1994).
“This conclusion rested on a provision of the Municipal Police Jurisdiction Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 8953(a), which sets forth the circumstances *289 under which a municipal police officer can pursue a suspect into a neighboring municipality: (a) General rule.”
Commonwealth v. Peters, 915 A.2d 1213 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2007).
“Appellant then filed this appeal raising the following question for our review: Whether the extraterritoi'ial arrest of the Defendant, by the Sugarcreek Borough Police Department while in the City of Franklin, was unlawful as the Sugarcreek Borough Police were not covered by any…”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8953(a)(1) — 7 cases
Com. v. Hobel, S., 275 A.3d 1049 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2022).
“42 Pa.C.S. § 8953(a)(1)-(6). Yet when a police officer’s extraterritorial actions do not fall within one of these exceptions, suppression is not automatically appropriate.”
Commonwealth v. Hlubin, 165 A.3d 1 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017).
“” 42 Pa.C.S. § 8953(a). Specifically, the MPJA enumerates a discrete set of circumstances under which a municipal police officer may exercise extra-territorial authority.”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8953(a)(2) — 28 cases
Commonwealth v. Peters, 965 A.2d 222 (Pa. 2009).
“" 42 Pa.C.S. § 8953(a). [8] Given our disposition, we do not reach or adopt the panel's alternative holding regarding the application of the exclusionary rule.”
Martin v. DOT, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 905 A.2d 438 (Pa. 2006).
“42 Pa.C.S. § 8953. The trial court concluded that Officer Sollenberger's arrest of appellant was not an authorized extra-jurisdictional arrest under subsection (a)(2)'s hot pursuit provision because probable cause to arrest her did not arise while she was in the officer's…”
Commonwealth v. Peters, 915 A.2d 1213 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2007).
“Appellant then filed this appeal raising the following question for our review: Whether the extraterritoi'ial arrest of the Defendant, by the Sugarcreek Borough Police Department while in the City of Franklin, was unlawful as the Sugarcreek Borough Police were not covered by any…”
Commonwealth v. McCandless, 648 A.2d 309 (Pa. 1994).
“This conclusion rested on a provision of the Municipal Police Jurisdiction Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 8953(a), which sets forth the circumstances *289 under which a municipal police officer can pursue a suspect into a neighboring municipality: (a) General rule.”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8953(a)(3) — 14 cases
Commonwealth v. Hlubin, M., Aplt., 208 A.3d 1032 (Pa. 2019).
“42 Pa.C.S. § 8953(a). This Court has stressed that section 8953(a) extends the authority of police officers to exercise official police duties outside of their primary jurisdictions only in these six specific and limited circumstances.”
Com. v. Hobel, S., 275 A.3d 1049 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2022).
“42 Pa.C.S. § 8953(a)(1)-(6). Yet when a police officer’s extraterritorial actions do not fall within one of these exceptions, suppression is not automatically appropriate.”
Commonwealth v. Hlubin, 165 A.3d 1 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017).
“” 42 Pa.C.S. § 8953(a). Specifically, the MPJA enumerates a discrete set of circumstances under which a municipal police officer may exercise extra-territorial authority.”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8953(a)(4) — 7 cases
Commonwealth v. Hlubin, M., Aplt., 208 A.3d 1032 (Pa. 2019).
“42 Pa.C.S. § 8953(a). This Court has stressed that section 8953(a) extends the authority of police officers to exercise official police duties outside of their primary jurisdictions only in these six specific and limited circumstances.”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8953(a)(5) — 26 cases
Martin v. DOT, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 905 A.2d 438 (Pa. 2006).
“42 Pa.C.S. § 8953. The trial court concluded that Officer Sollenberger's arrest of appellant was not an authorized extra-jurisdictional arrest under subsection (a)(2)'s hot pursuit provision because probable cause to arrest her did not arise while she was in the officer's…”
Com. v. Hobel, S., 275 A.3d 1049 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2022).
“42 Pa.C.S. § 8953(a)(1)-(6). Yet when a police officer’s extraterritorial actions do not fall within one of these exceptions, suppression is not automatically appropriate.”
Commonwealth v. Firman, 813 A.2d 643 (Pa. 2002).
“The Commonwealth maintains that the Act's extraterritorial term should be given the same effect as that of the Municipal Police Jurisdiction Act, see 42 Pa.C.S. § 8953, which permits municipal officers to make extraterritorial arrests, inter alia, for offenses involving breach…”
Commonwealth v. McCandless, 648 A.2d 309 (Pa. 1994).
“This conclusion rested on a provision of the Municipal Police Jurisdiction Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 8953(a), which sets forth the circumstances *289 under which a municipal police officer can pursue a suspect into a neighboring municipality: (a) General rule.”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8953(a)(6) — 2 cases
Commonwealth v. Peters, 915 A.2d 1213 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2007).
“Appellant then filed this appeal raising the following question for our review: Whether the extraterritoi'ial arrest of the Defendant, by the Sugarcreek Borough Police Department while in the City of Franklin, was unlawful as the Sugarcreek Borough Police were not covered by any…”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8953(a)(6)(c) — 1 case
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8953(a)(l) — 1 case
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8953(b) — 1 case
Commonwealth v. Hlubin, M., Aplt., 208 A.3d 1032 (Pa. 2019).
“42 Pa.C.S. § 8953(a). This Court has stressed that section 8953(a) extends the authority of police officers to exercise official police duties outside of their primary jurisdictions only in these six specific and limited circumstances.”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8953(d) — 1 case
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8953(e) — 4 cases
Commonwealth v. Hlubin, M., Aplt., 208 A.3d 1032 (Pa. 2019).
“42 Pa.C.S. § 8953(a). This Court has stressed that section 8953(a) extends the authority of police officers to exercise official police duties outside of their primary jurisdictions only in these six specific and limited circumstances.”
Commonwealth v. Hlubin, 165 A.3d 1 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017).
“” 42 Pa.C.S. § 8953(a). Specifically, the MPJA enumerates a discrete set of circumstances under which a municipal police officer may exercise extra-territorial authority.”
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.