Opinion
Record No. 1613-91-1
December 15, 1992
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH KENNETH N. WHITEHURST, JR., JUDGE.
Richard C. Langhorne (Roussos, Ford and Langhorne, P.C., on brief), for appellant.
Thomas C. Daniel, Assistant Attorney General (Mary Sue Terry, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
Present: Judges Baker, Barrow and Bray.
Argued at Norfolk, Virginia.
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated publication.
This appeal is from a conviction of forcible sodomy challenging the authority of the police to arrest the defendant. We hold that the arrest was lawful, even though it was technically improper, and affirm the conviction.
The authority of a police officer to make an arrest by virtue of his office is subject to territorial limits. See Code §§ 19.2-76, 19.2-250; see also Banks v. Bradley, 192 Va. 598, 603, 66 S.E.2d 526, 529 (1951); Hoambrecker v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 511, 513, 412 S.E.2d 729, 730 (1992). In this case, the Virginia Beach officers exceeded the territorial limits of their authority when they arrested the defendant in Norfolk. However, even if police officers make an arrest outside of their territorial jurisdiction, the arrest may still be lawful because the officers retain the power of private citizens to effect the arrest of a felony suspect. Tharp v. Commonwealth, 221 Va. 487, 490, 270 S.E.2d 752, 754 (1980) (citing Moore v. Oliver, 347 F. Supp. 1313, 1316 (W.D. Va. 1972)); see also Hall v. Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 559, 563, 389 S.E.2d 921, 924 (1990).
When a felony has been committed and a police officer has reasonable grounds for believing a person committed the crime, the police officer has the same authority to arrest the person as would a private citizen. Tharp, 221 Va. at 490, 270 S.E.2d at 754. In this case, a felony (forcible sodomy) was committed and the Virginia Beach police officers had probable cause to believe that the defendant had committed the crime. We hold, therefore, that even if the arrest exceeded the police officers' territorial authority, they retained their authority as private citizens to arrest the defendant. Accordingly, we affirm the defendant's judgment of conviction.
Affirmed.