Extra-Territorial Arrests and OMVI/DUI/OVI in Ohio

There have been several cases in Ohio in which a driver has been pulled over by the police outside of their territorial jurisdiction for driving under the influence. Those drivers have argued that the evidence gained during and after these illegal stops should be suppressed.

Ohio Revised Code Section 2935.03(A)(1) governs a police officer’s jurisdiction to arrest. But only constitutional violations of a suspect’s rights trigger the exclusionary rule. Violations of a suspect’s statutory rights do not. Thus, when determining whether an extraterritorial stop triggers the exclusionary rule, a court must determine, under the totality of the circumstances, whether the statutory violation rises to the level of a constitutional violation, i.e., whether the police officer had reasonable suspicion to stop and sufficient probable cause to arrest appellant. State v. Weideman (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 501.

In Weideman, an officer who was a half mile out of his jurisdiction observed a vehicle traveling left of center, leave the road twice, and again travel left of center. The officer stopped the vehicle and requested assistance from the Ohio State Highway Patrol. The officer then observed that Weideman, the driver of the vehicle, had bloodshot eyes and smelled of alcohol. The officer detained Weideman who was subsequently arrested by a Highway Patrol officer for driving while under the influence of alcohol.


Weideman filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the officer who pulled him over conducted an illegal stop because he was outside his jurisdiction. The Ohio Supreme Court, citing Ohio Revised Code Section 2935.03(A)(1), noted that the officer had in fact violated the statute in stopping Weideman’s vehicle outside of his jurisdiction. However, employing the balancing test of the United States Supreme Court in Wyoming v. Houghton (1999), 526 U.S. 295, to determine whether a governmental action violates the reasonableness requirement of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Ohio Supreme Court concluded that:

“the state’s interest in protecting the public from a person who drives an automobile in a manner that endangers other drivers outweighs Weideman’s right to drive unhindered. These two factors demonstrate that [the officer's] violation of R.C. 2935.03 does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation.” Weideman at 506.

The Ohio Supreme Court held that if the totality of the facts and circumstances demonstrate that police had a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal conduct sufficient to warrant the investigative stop and detention, and probable cause to arrest, then while that extraterritorial seizure may violate R.C. 2935.03, it does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation requiring suppression of all evidence derived from the stop. Weideman at 506.

A distinction has been drawn however when the suspect is not doing anything that is a violation of law nor endangering anyone’s life. In State v. Fitzpatrick (2003), 152 Ohio App.3d 122, the Sixth District Court of Appeals excluded evidence where an officer outside his jurisdiction merely observed the defendant’s vehicle “moving kind of slow.” In that case, there was no testimony suggesting that the defendant’s manner of driving presented a danger to other motorists. The officer had no reasonable suspicion of criminal activity on behalf of the defendant until after he had left his jurisdiction and discovered that defendant was in possession of illegal plates. Because this violation did not present an imminent safety danger to other motorists, the Sixth District could see no reason why the officer could not have alerted the police with jurisdictional authority to the general location of the vehicle so that they could make the stop. The court explained:

“We conclude that the government’s interest in making an extraterritorial stop and arrest for a fourth-degree-misdemeanor violation is minimal and outweighed by the serious intrusion upon a person’s liberty and privacy that necessarily arises out of a stop and arrest. Therefore, Officer Snow’s action in making an extraterritorial stop of appellant’s vehicle violates the reasonableness requirement of the Fourth Amendment. Officer Snow’s statutory violation in this case does require suppression of all evidence flowing from the stop.” Fitzpatrick at 126.

In other cases, however, where traffic infractions occurred which could have endangered other drivers, courts have held that so long as there was probable cause to stop and detain the defendant, there was no constitutional violation necessitating the application of the exclusionary rule.

So just because the police officer observed your commit an infraction outside of his jurisdiction, and just because he stopped you outside of his jurisdiction, this will not necessarily require that the evidence against you be suppressed.

Clear your DUI record