Request By:
R. Keith Cullinan, Esq.
P. O. Box 32890
Louisville, Kentucky 40232
Opinion
Opinion By: Steven L. Beshear, Attorney General; Thomas R. Emerson, Assistant Attorney General
This is in reply to your letter raising a question concerning the authority and responsibility of police officers to enforce the provisions of a particular statute.
You are specifically concerned with KRS 189.520(3), a section of the statute prohibiting the operation of a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicants or drugs, which states, "No peace officer or state police officer shall fail to enforce rigidly this section." You ask whether this particular section confers statewide jurisdiction and responsibility on all peace officers for its enforcement irrespective of the governmental body from which the peace officer's authority arises. You are especially concerned with the police officers of the cities of Indian Hills and Rolling Fields, two cities of the sixth class, whose police departments are operating pursuant to an interlocal agreement (KRS 65.210 to 65.300).
The jurisdiction of police officers of a sixth class city to arrest for offenses against the state is generally citywide. See OAG 80-385, copy enclosed. Where police departments of sixth class cities are operating under an interlocal agreement, the jurisdiction of those police officers is extended to include the municipal limits of all of the cities which are parties to the interlocal agreement. KRS 65.255, dealing with the powers of peace officers operating under interlocal agreements, states as follows:
"If an agreement entered into under the authority of KRS 65.210 to 65.300 provides for cooperative action in the utilization of peace officers, police department members, while in the performance of their duties under such an agreement outside their own city or county, shall have the full power of arrest and all other powers they possess in their own city or county and shall have the same immunities and privileges as if the duties were performed in their own city or county."
While the jurisdiction of police officers of sixth class cities is limited to the city limits of their respective cities or to the city limits of all of those sixth class cities operating under an interlocal agreement, jurisdiction can sometimes be expanded under the concept of "hot pursuit. " KRS 431.045 provides that, "A peace officer in actual pursuit may continue such pursuit across corporate or county lines for the purpose of making an arrest. " This would, of course, apply to the enforcement of KRS 189.520. "Hot pursuit" is discussed in more detail in OAG 74-380, a copy of which is enclosed.
While police officers of a sixth class city have, as do all peace officers in this state, a statutory obligation to rigidly enforce the provisions of KRS 189.520, they can only enforce this statute or any other statute within their jurisdictional area of authority. Generally, the jurisdiction of police officers of a sixth class city to arrest for offenses against the state is limited to the city limits of their particular city. Where sixth class cities are operating under an interlocal agreement, the jurisdiction of those police officers is extended to include the city limits of all of the cities which are parties to the agreement. Under the appropriate circumstances the jurisdiction of a sixth class city police officer could be expanded by the utilization of the concept of "hot pursuit. "