Opinion ID: 2629561
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Emergency Exception to Territorial Jurisdiction

Text: ¶ 19 King contends that Starks could not arrest him for reckless driving because the officer had no authority under a valid interlocal agreement, and the emergency exception to territorial jurisdiction did not apply. The district court found the State had not established there was such an agreement authorizing the arrest under RCW 10.93.070(1) (allowing Washington police to enforce traffic and criminal laws across boundaries [u]pon the prior written consent of the sheriff or chief of police in the area where the offense occurs). But an officer can also make an arrest in other circumstances enumerated in the statute, including, [i]n response to an emergency involving an immediate threat to human life or property. RCW 10.93.070(2). The district court read this exception broadly and concluded it necessarily covers reckless driving, defined as willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property. RCW 46.61.500(1); see RP at 71 (RCW 10.93.070(2) is broad enough to include reckless driving). The Clark County Superior Court and the Court of Appeals agreed. ¶ 20 To date, no decision has turned on the application of this exception, but a plain reading indicates King's driving does not qualify as an emergency involving an immediate threat to life or property. Durham is illustrative. 95 Wash.App. 876, 978 P.2d 514. There a man was spotted driving erratically in south Tacoma, running a red light, nearly hitting a transit supervisor's car, weaving across the center line, and rolling backward at a stop light. A Tacoma police officer heard about the man's dangerous driving over radio dispatch, caught up with him in Lakewood, and arrested him on suspicion of driving under the influence. The defendant argued the officer lacked authority for the arrest. The Court of Appeals held the officer was justified in making the extraterritorial arrest under the fresh pursuit exception in RCW 10.93.070(6). See also RCW 10.93.120 defining `fresh pursuit.' [5] ¶ 21 The Durham court also noted that the emergency exception of RCW 10.93.070(2) provided independent justification for the DUI [6] arrest. 95 Wash.App. at 881, 978 P.2d 514. Officer Quinn was responding to a 911 call by Stewart, who observed Durham's car weaving across the center line after it ran a red light and nearly struck his car. Clearly, this situation presented an emergency, and Quinn reasonably responded across jurisdictional lines. Id. at 881-82, 978 P.2d 514. ¶ 22 But here the district court merely took the definition of reckless driving and concluded that it automatically fit within the emergency exception. However King's actions did not reach the level of erratic driving that constitutes an emergency involving an immediate threat to human life or property. RCW 10.93.070(2). Unlike Durham, King did not nearly hit another car, nor run a light, nor weave across traffic lanes. He did not pop a wheelie, cut off another car, nor, for that matter, drive in reverse along the shoulder. [7] At most, King glared at the driver of the large truck, stood on his foot pegs for three to five seconds, and accelerated at high speed past the truck. As aforementioned, Starks could not verify that King accelerated away at what he thought was 100 m.p.h. Even so, the officer testified King slowed down as he approached other traffic and pulled over immediately when Starks signaled him to do so. King may have exceeded the speed limit by a considerable margin, but his driving was not anywhere near as dangerous as that of the intoxicated defendant in Durham, 95 Wash.App. 876, 978 P.2d 514. Moreover, there was no eyewitness account here indicating an immediate threat, unlike Durham where the transit supervisor reported he was almost hit. The record shows King's actions did not constitute an immediate threat to life or property as required under RCW 10.93.070(2). We choose not to broaden or water down the meaning of this emergency exception to include speeding such as King's. Furthermore, we note that police officers are still authorized to effect extraterritorial arrests in circumstances where a valid interlocal agreement between jurisdictions exists or where the fresh pursuit exception applies.