Can Maryland's Toll Facilities Police arrest someone on property that isn't owned or controlled by the Transportation Authority?

Plain-English summary

A state's attorneys' coordinator asked the Attorney General to clarify the territorial reach of Maryland's Toll Facilities Police, after a District Court dismissed charges in an Anne Arundel County case because the state hadn't documented in writing the exact property lines of the toll facility project at the Francis Scott Key Bridge, and the defendant argued the arrest happened outside the officer's jurisdiction.

The Attorney General concluded that Toll Facilities Police could exercise their arrest powers only on property owned, leased, or operated under the control of the Maryland Transportation Authority, with a short list of statutory exceptions: fresh pursuit of a suspect who committed a felony (or a misdemeanor committed in the officer's presence) within the officer's normal jurisdiction, a specific request from a local government's chief executive or police chief, or an order from the Governor. But the opinion pushed back on the District Court's remedy: dismissing the charge outright wasn't necessarily the right outcome for an arrest made outside that jurisdiction. Under established Maryland law, an arrest made outside an officer's territorial authority doesn't strip a court of jurisdiction over the case or require quashing the charge; instead, the appropriate remedy is typically suppressing any evidence obtained because of the illegal arrest, and even then, the state might still be able to argue the officer's actions amounted to a valid citizen's arrest, which carries its own, more limited grounds and its own more limited remedy if it too turns out to be invalid.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1992. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here, including the current text of TR §4-208 (which the opinion itself notes was being expanded by a bill awaiting the Governor's signature at the time this opinion was written) and current Maryland case law on remedies for arrests made outside an officer's jurisdiction.

Common questions

Could Maryland's Toll Facilities Police arrest someone on property the Transportation Authority didn't own or control?
Generally no, according to this opinion, except in narrow circumstances: fresh pursuit of a suspected felon (or a misdemeanor committed in the officer's presence) that began on Authority property and continued elsewhere, a specific request from a local jurisdiction's chief executive or police chief, or an order from the Governor.

If a Toll Facilities Police officer arrested someone outside their jurisdiction and no exception applied, did the case have to be dismissed?
Not automatically, according to this opinion. It concluded that an illegal arrest doesn't affect a court's jurisdiction over the case or provide grounds to quash the charge; the more likely remedy is suppressing evidence that resulted from the illegal arrest, such as an incriminating statement, while the case itself could still proceed if the state had other admissible evidence.

Could an out-of-jurisdiction arrest by a Toll Facilities Police officer still be valid another way?
Possibly, as a citizen's arrest. The opinion noted that an officer acting outside statutory authority and outside fresh pursuit is treated as acting like a private citizen, who in Maryland can arrest someone based on probable cause of a felony or a misdemeanor breach of the peace committed in the citizen's presence; if that citizen's-arrest standard was met, the arrest could still be valid even though the officer's special police powers didn't apply there.

What happens if even a citizen's arrest by the officer turns out to be invalid?
According to the opinion, the remedy is still narrower than outright dismissal: only evidence obtained as a result of the invalid citizen's arrest would be suppressed, and the prosecution could otherwise proceed if it had sufficient independent evidence to support the charge.

Background and statutory framework

TR §4-208 of the Transportation Article gave Toll Facilities Police officers all the powers of a peace officer and police officer of the state, but limited where they could exercise those powers: only on property owned, leased, or operated by or under the control of the Maryland Transportation Authority, unless the officer was in fresh pursuit of a suspect, was specially requested to act in a political subdivision by its chief executive or police chief, or was ordered to act by the Governor. The opinion noted that a bill awaiting the Governor's signature at the time would soon add a further exception allowing officers to act on Maryland Port Administration property at that agency's request.

Because Maryland law generally confines a peace officer's arrest authority to the geographic area of the officer's jurisdiction absent statutory authority to go further, the opinion read "fresh pursuit" under TR §4-208(b)(2)(i) using the definition from the state's general fresh-pursuit statute, Article 27, §602A: pursuit is available where a person has committed, or is reasonably believed to have committed, a felony within the officer's jurisdiction, or has committed a misdemeanor amounting to a breach of the peace in the officer's presence within that jurisdiction. If a Toll Facilities Police officer began a chase on Authority property under one of these circumstances and the chase carried the officer beyond that property, the officer retained arrest authority. But if an officer made an arrest outside Authority property with no exception applying, the opinion concluded the lack of jurisdiction was clear, though that did not resolve what remedy should follow.

On remedy, the opinion relied on Maryland case law holding that an illegal arrest does not deprive a court of jurisdiction over the offense and is not grounds to quash an indictment or dismiss a charge; instead, the usual consequence is suppression of evidence obtained because of the illegality, such as an incriminating statement, if the officers are treated as agents of the state. The opinion also raised an alternative theory: an officer acting outside statutory territorial authority is treated under Maryland law as acting like a private citizen, and the exclusionary rule doesn't apply to a valid citizen's arrest. Since Maryland allowed a private citizen to arrest someone based on probable cause of a felony, or for a misdemeanor amounting to a breach of the peace committed in the citizen's presence, the state could potentially defend an out-of-jurisdiction Toll Facilities Police arrest as a valid citizen's arrest; and even if that citizen's arrest were itself invalid, the remedy would still be limited to suppressing any evidence obtained as a result, not automatic dismissal of the case.

Citations and references

Statutes:

• TR §4-208 (Transportation Article), defining Toll Facilities Police officers' powers and territorial limits
• TR §4-208(b)(1), granting Toll Facilities Police officers the general powers of a peace and police officer
• TR §4-208(b)(2) and §4-208(b)(2)(i), limiting those powers to Authority property except in fresh pursuit and other listed circumstances
• Article 27, §602A and §602A(c), the general fresh-pursuit statute used to define "fresh pursuit" for Toll Facilities Police purposes

Cases:

• Stevenson v. State, 287 Md. 504, 413 A.2d 1340 (1980), cited on the general territorial limits of a peace officer's arrest authority and the private-person arrest doctrine
• Hammond v. State, 7 Md. App. 588, 256 A.2d 768, cert. denied, 256 Md. 745 (1970), cited for the rule that an illegal arrest does not affect a court's jurisdiction or require dismissal
• Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963), cited on suppression of evidence, including statements, obtained as a result of an illegal arrest
• Wright v. State, 58 Md. App. 447, 473 A.2d 530 (1984), cited on the scope of a private citizen's arrest authority
• Crowley v. State, 25 Md. App. 417, 341 A.2d 886 (1975), cited on the remedy for an invalid citizen's arrest being limited to suppression of resulting evidence

Source

• Landing page: https://oag.maryland.gov/resources-info/Pages/attorney-general%E2%80%99s-opinions.aspx
• Original PDF: https://oag.maryland.gov/resources-info/Documents/pdfs/Opinions/1992/Volume77_1992.pdf (this opinion appears at printed page 212 of the bound annual volume; Maryland's site does not publish a standalone PDF of this opinion)

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain — the linked PDF is authoritative.

TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

Jurisdiction of Toll Facilities Police

                           May 11, 1992

Dario Broccolino, Esquire
State's Attorneys' Coordinator

  You have requested our opinion concerning the jurisdiction of the

Toll Facilities Police at various toll facilities within the State of Maryland.

   For the reasons set forth below, we conclude as follows: With

certain exceptions set out in §4-208 of the Transportation Article, the Toll
Facilities Police may only exercise their powers on property owned, leased,
or operated under the control of the Maryland Transportation Authority
("Authority"). Plats defining these property boundaries are available as
need be should this jurisdictional limit become an issue in a prosecution.

                                   I

                            Background

   As we understand it, your request for our opinion resulted from a

case in the District Court for Anne Arundel County. In that case, the
defendant claimed that the arrest occurred outside the Toll Facilities Police
officer's jurisdiction. Because the State had not established in writing the
property lines of the toll facilities' project at the Francis Scott Key Bridge,
the charges were dismissed.

                                  II

                              Analysis

  Section 4-208 of the Transportation Article ("TR" Article) sets forth

the powers of the Toll Facilities Police. In pertinent part, this statute
provides as follows:

           (b)(1) A toll facilities police officer has all the
       powers granted to a peace officer and a police officer
       of this State.

            (2) However, the toll facilities police officer may
        exercise these powers only on property owned, leased,
        or operated by or under the control of the Authority.
        The police officer may not exercise these powers on
        any other property unless:

                    (i) Engaged in fresh pursuit of a suspected
        offender;

                 (ii) Specially requested or permitted to do so
        in a political subdivision by its chief executive officer
        or its chief police officer; or

                (iii) Ordered to do so by the Governor.1

   Generally, a peace officer's authority to make an arrest is limited, in

the absence of statutory authority expanding it, to the confines of the
geographical unit of which he is an officer. Stevenson v. State, 287 Md.
504, 509, 413 A.2d 1340 (1980). Hence, as a general proposition, the Toll
Facilities Police may make arrests only on the Authority's property, as
delineated on plats or other authoritative evidence. Both TR §4-208 and
the common law of Maryland, however, provide some exceptions to this
general proposition.

   First, TR §4-208(b)(2)(i) permits an officer who is in "fresh pursuit"

of a suspected felon to make a legally binding arrest on "other property."
While "fresh pursuit" is not defined in this statute, the term is defined
under an analogous provision, Article 27, §602A which authorizes a law
enforcement officer to arrest a person beyond the officer's territorial
jurisdiction if the officer is engaged in fresh pursuit of the suspect. The
circumstances under which an officer may engage in fresh pursuit under
§602A are if the person:

            (1) Has committed or is reasonably believed by the
        law enforcement officer to have committed a felony in
        the jurisdiction in which the law enforcement officer
        has the power of arrest; or

            (2) Has committed a misdemeanor in the presence
       of the law enforcement officer and in the jurisdiction in
       which the law enforcement officer has the power of
       arrest.

Article 27, §602A(c).

   In our view, that definition is equally applicable in the case of a Toll

Facilities police officer under TR §4-208(b)(2)(i). Thus, if either of the
circumstances outlined above occurred, and a Toll Facilities Police officer
began chase on property owned, leased, or operated under the control of
the Authority, and that pursuit continued beyond the Authority's property,
nonetheless the officer would be empowered to make an arrest.

  If a Toll Facilities Police officer effected an arrest beyond the

Authority's property and neither the "fresh pursuit" nor other exception
applied, the lack of jurisdiction would be clear. The real question is one
of remedy.

   In the case you described, the District Court dismissed the charge.

In our view, dismissal of the charge is not necessarily the appropriate
remedy. See Hammond v. State, 7 Md. App. 588, 594, 256 A.2d 768,
cert. denied, 256 Md. 745 (1970) (illegal arrest does not affect the
jurisdiction of the court, is not a ground for quashing the indictment, and
does not preclude trial for the offense). Rather, the remedy for an illegal
arrest might well be suppression of evidence obtained as a result of the
illegality, if the officers are viewed as agents of the State.2 For example,
if a defendant were to make an incriminating statement, that statement
could be suppressed. See Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471
(1963).

   On the other hand, the simple fact that an officer not in fresh pursuit

makes an arrest while in another jurisdiction does not automatically render
the arrest illegal. Rather, in that instance "the officer is said to do so as a
private person, and they only act beyond [their] bailiwick to the extent that
the law of the place of arrest authorizes such individuals to do so."
Stevenson, 287 Md. at 510. In the case of an officer acting as a private
person, the exclusionary rule does not apply. In other words, if
appropriate, the State could argue that the Toll Facility Police officer
effected a valid citizen's arrest.

  In Maryland, a private citizen presently may make an arrest if he has

reasonable grounds (probable cause) to believe that a felony has been
committed and that the person arrested committed it. Furthermore, a
private citizen may make an arrest when a misdemeanor, amounting to a
breach of the peace, has been committed in the view or presence of the
arrestor. Stevenson v. State, 287 Md. at 520; Wright v. State, 58 Md. App.
447, 454, 473 A.2d 530 (1984). In our view, in the case of an illegal
citizen's arrest, much like an illegal arrest by an officer, the appropriate
remedy is not necessarily dismissal of the charges. For example, if the
citizen lacked probable cause to believe a felony had been committed, and
the defendant challenged the charge on that basis, provided the State had
sufficient independent evidence to support the charge, the case would
proceed.3 The only effect of the illegal citizen's arrest would be the
suppression of evidence, if any, obtained as a result of that illegal arrest.
See e.g., Crowley v. State, 25 Md. App. 417, 341 A.2d 886 (1975).

                                 III

                            Conclusion

 In summary, it is our opinion that, with the exceptions provided in

TR §4-208, the Toll Facilities Police may exercise their powers only on
property owned, leased, or operated under the control of the Maryland
Transportation Authority.

                                          J. Joseph Curran, Jr.
                                          Attorney General

                                          Mary O'Malley Lunden
                                          Assistant Attorney General

Jack Schwartz
Chief Counsel
Opinions and Advice

1
Senate Bill 121, enacted during the 1992 regular session and scheduled
to be signed by the Governor on May 12, will broaden the jurisdiction of the Toll
Facilities Police by adding a new subparagraph (iii) to provide that an officer may
exercise police power if "[s]pecially requested or permitted to do so on property
owned, leased, or operated by or under the control of the Maryland Port
Administration by its chief police officer .... " Former subparagraph (iii) will be
renumbered as subparagraph (iv).

2
We recognize that in some instances the suppression of critical evidence
could render prosecution futile.

3
See note 2 above.