Chat with us, powered by LiveChat

The fresh pursuit doctrine allows police officers to make an arrest outside of their jurisdiction if they are in fresh pursuit of a suspect who committed a crime within their jurisdiction. However, the doctrine has limits.

In the case of Wenatchee v. Durham, the Washington Court of Appeals considered the limits of the fresh pursuit doctrine. The case arose when James Durham was stopped by a Wenatchee police officer for speeding on State Route 2. The officer asked Durham for his identification, and Durham refused to provide it. The officer then detained Durham and searched his vehicle, where he found marijuana. Durham was charged with possession of marijuana and driving under the influence.

At trial, Durham challenged the search of his vehicle, arguing that the officer did not have probable cause to stop him. The trial court found that the officer had probable cause, and Durham was convicted. Durham appealed, arguing that the officer did not have fresh pursuit because he stopped him outside of Wenatchee’s jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeals held that the officer did not have fresh pursuit. The court reasoned that the officer did not actually see Durham commit the crime, and he did not have any other information that would have led him to believe that Durham had committed a crime in Wenatchee. The court also noted that the officer did not immediately pursue Durham after he saw him speeding.

The decision in Wenatchee v. Durham is an important reminder of the limits of the fresh pursuit doctrine. The doctrine only applies if the police officer:

  • Actually sees the suspect commit the crime, or
  • Has other information that would lead them to believe that the suspect committed a crime in their jurisdiction.
  • Immediately pursues the suspect.

Wenatchee v. Durham, 43 Wash.App. 547 (1986)

If you need help with a criminal case please call us at 253-720-9304 or email us at