COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judg es Willis, El der and Bray Argued at Rich mond, Virginia

SHANNON MICHAE L BREITBACH OPINION BY v. Record No. 1808-00-2 JUDG E JERE M. H. WILLIS, JR. JUNE 5, 2001 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

FROM THE CIRCUIT COUR T OF LOUISA COUNTY Daniel R. Bo uton, Judge Stephen C. Harris (Gra ven W. Craig; Graven W. Craig, PLLC, on brief), for appellant. Thomas M. McKenna, As sistant Attorn ey General (Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

On appeal from hi s conviction of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, in violation of Code § 18.2-266, Shannon Michael Brei tbach contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. Breitbach argues that because the arre sting officer ac ted outside hi s territorial jurisdiction, th e traffic stop was unla wful and the resulting evidence was inadmissib le. We disagree and affirm the conviction.

I. BACKGROUND In reviewing the tr ial court's de nial of the motion to suppress, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, granting to it all reason able inferences deducible therefrom. See Giles v. Commonwealth , 28 Va. App. 527, 532, 507S.E.2d 102, 105 (1998). Although we re view the trial court's findings of hist orical fact only for "c lear error," we review de

novo the trial court's ap plication of defined legal stan dards to the facts of the case. See id. On August 29, 1999, Breitbach was operating a motor vehicle heading out of the Town of Louisa into Louisa County. Before Breitbach had passed a point one mile from the town limits, Aubrey O. Robertson, police officer for the Town of Louisa, using his moving radar, clocked Breitbach's speed at seventy miles per hour in a posted fifty-five miles per hour zone. At that time, Officer Robertson's vehicle was located outside of one mile from the town limits, but Breitbach's speeding car was within that limit. Turning while still outside one mile from the town limits, Officer Robertson pursued and stopped Breitbach. Based on his observations of Breitbach, Officer Robertson arrested him and charged him with driving while intoxicated. Officer Robertson wore a Town of Louisa police uniform and displayed a Town of Louisa police badge during the incident. Breitbach moved to suppress all evidence obtained upon the traffic stop, arguing that the stop was unlawful because Officer Robertson lacked authority to act as a police officer or to operate radar outside one mile from the Louisa town limits. The trial court denied the motion.

- 2 -II. ANALYSIS Code § 19.2-250 provides that , in criminal cases involving offenses against the Co mmonwealth, the jurisdiction of a city or town "shall extend wi thin the Commonwealth one mile beyond the corporate limi ts of such town or city . . . ." In discussing the purpose of predecessor statutes substantially similar to Code § 19.2-250, the Supreme Court of Virginia stated: "Code, sections 15-560 and 17-139 do not purport to extend the effect of municipal ordinances beyond the corporate limits of a city. They are statutes of enforcement of the effective law within the area specified. Their purpose is plain, that is, to prevent the territory contiguous to a city from becoming a refuge for criminals and to confer on the corporation courts of cities power to enforce the police regulations and law of the area involved." Squire v. Commonwealth , 214 Va. 260, 261, 199 S.E.2d 534, 536 (1973) (quoting Murray v. Roanoke , 192 Va. 321, 32 6-27, 64 S.E.2d 804, 808 (1951)). Inasmuch as the pu rpose of the statut e is the effective enforcement of the law within the extended boundary, it is irrelevant where the arresting offi cer was locate d when he observed the speeding vi olation. The relevant questi on is whether the offense occurr ed within the Town of Lo uisa's jurisdiction as defined by Code § 19.2-250. Citing Code § 46.2 -882, Breitbac h contends th at because Officer Robert son was acting as a Town of Loui sa officer and

- 3 -wearing a Town of Louisa uniform and badge, he wa s authorized to operate radar and to make consequent arre sts for spee ding only within the one-mile ra dius from the Town of Louisa's corporate limit. He argues th at because Officer Ro bertson oper ated the radar while outsid e the one-mile limit, th e resulting information was unlawfully obtained and could not serve as the pr edicate for a lawful stop. He argu es that Office r Robertson's st opping him was thus unlawful and viol ative of the Fourth Am endment and that all resulting eviden ce should have been supp ressed. We reject this argument. Although Officer Ro bertson was lo cated outside the one-mile limit, he employed the radar to observe even ts within that limit. So acting, he perceive d circumstances that gave him probable cause to believe that Breitbac h was speeding within the one-mile limit. These observat ions supported Of ficer Robert son's hot pu rsuit of Breitbach. See Neiss v. Commonwealth , 16 Va. App. 807, 809-10, 433 S.E.2d 262, 264 (1 993). The resulting st op, observat ions of Breitbach, and driving while intoxicate d charge were thus amply supported an d proper. The judgment of the trial cour t is affirmed. Affirmed.

- 4 -