COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Chief Judge Fitzpatrick, Judges Coleman and Bumgardner 

Argued at Salem, Virginia 

ROBERT BRUCE HAMM 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 1607-98-3 JUDGE RUDOLPH BUMGARDNER, III 

 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999 

CITY OF NORTON 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF WISE COUNTY 

J. Robert Stump, Judge 

 H. Patrick Cline (Cline, Adkins & Cline, on 

brief), for appellant. 

 Timothy W. McAfee for appellee. 

 

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code 

§ 17-116.010, this opinion is not designated for publication.

Robert Hamm appeals his conviction of driving under the 

influence of alcohol. He argues that the police officer 

unlawfully arrested him outside his territorial limit of 

authority. Finding that the arrest was lawful, we affirm the 

conviction. 

 A Norton City police officer observed the defendant driving 

erratically within the city limits. He followed the defendant, 

who proceeded outside the city travelling on Route 58. The 

officer did not immediately activate his blue lights once he 

developed a reasonable suspicion that the defendant was driving 

under the influence because he did not feel it was safe to stop 
the defendant at that point. When the officer activated his 

lights, the two had traveled more than one mile outside the city 

along Route 58, but the location was physically within one mile 

of the city limits. The defendant did not stop his vehicle 

until they had traveled more than one mile from the nearest 

point in the city limits. 

Hoambrecker v. City of Lynchburg, 13 Va. App. 511, 513, 412 

S.E.2d 729, 730 (1992), held that Code § 19.2-250 gave municipal 

police officers the authority to arrest within one mile outside 

city limits. The defendant argues that the proper way to 

measure the one-mile limitation fixed by Code § 19.2-250 is to 

measure the distance traveled along the route actually taken. 

In this case, the defendant and the officer traveled more than 

one mile past the city limit sign as they proceeded into the 

county, but on a direct line they were within one mile of the 

city limits. After it leaves the city, Route 58 runs along the 

city limits before turning away from that boundary. 

 Code § 19.2-250 states that jurisdiction "shall extend 

. . . one mile beyond the corporate limits of such town or city 

. . . ." The meaning is clear; at all points along a corporate 

limit, jurisdiction extends one mile beyond the limit. This 

delineates a perimeter enclosing the city limits that is at all 

points one mile from the nearest point in the city limits. The 

crucial distance is between the point in question and the 

closest point in the city limits. 

- 2 -
The defendant does not dispute the officer activated his 

lights within one mile when measured on the most direct line to 

the city limits. It does not matter that the route actually 

traveled extended more than a mile because that route still left 

the parties within one mile of the nearest point in the city 

limit boundary line. 

 The defendant argues that even if the officer activated his 

lights within one mile, he had to complete the stop within the 

one-mile area. He argues that Code § 19.2-77 permits an officer 

to arrest beyond one mile if the defendant is fleeing and the 

officer is in close pursuit. The defendant argues that he was 

not fleeing, as required by the statute, because he never 

increased his speed, took any evasive action, or tried to get 

away. 

Neiss v. Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 807, 810, 433 S.E.2d 

262, 265 (1993), held that proof that the officer was attempting 

to arrest the suspect and was closely pursuing the suspect 

satisfies Code § 19.2-77. "The fact that [the defendant] was 

not speeding or was not driving so as to elude [the officer] 

does not mean that he was not fleeing from [him]." Id. Close 

pursuit "is a relative term which depends upon time and distance 

and which must be determined by examining the particular facts 

of each case." Id. (citing Callands v. Commonwealth, 208 Va. 

340, 342-43, 157 S.E.2d 198, 201 (1967)). 

- 3 -
The trial court specifically found that the officer was in 

close pursuit. The officer was directly behind the defendant 

the entire time that he followed him. The officer observed 

erratic driving, which gave him justification to stop the 

defendant, and as soon as it was safe to pull him over, the 

officer activated his lights. The officer did not complete the 

stop for another .3 mile, but the facts support the trial 

court's finding that the officer was in close pursuit. 

Accordingly, the officer was authorized under Code § 19.2-77 to 

make the arrest. We affirm the conviction. 

Affirmed.

- 4 -