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 scope and authority of police officers of sixth class cities to execute arrest warrants outside the municipal boundaries of their cities.
You state that arrest warrants, as well as subpoenas and other legal process, are issued by various courts in the Commonwealth and command any and all peace officers to execute them. They make no distinction as to the jurisdiction of the peace officer so mandated. Your letter further states that on some occasions persons known to have outstanding arrest warrants against them have been spotted by police officers of sixth class cities within the Commonwealth but outside the city limits of the city by whom the particular officer is employed. The police officers of sixth class cities are uncertain as to whether such warrants can be served by them outside the boundaries of their respective cities.
The Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure provide in part in RCr 2.06(1) that the warrant shall be directed to all peace officers in the Commonwealth and shall direct that the defendant be arrested and brought before the court to which it is returnable. RCr 2.10(1) states in part that a warrant of arrest may be executed by any peace officer and the officer need not have the warrant in his possession at the time of arrest.
A "peace officer" specifically includes sheriffs, constables, coroners, jailers, marshals, policemen and other persons with similar authority to make arrests. See KRS 446.010(24).
Unlike, for example, sheriffs, deputy sheriffs and police officers of the first five classes of cities, all of whom have county-wide jurisdiction to arrest for offenses against the state, the jurisdiction of police officers of cities of the sixth class is confined to the city limits. See OAG 82-599, copy enclosed. Furthermore, we are not aware of any statute authorizing police officers of a sixth class city to serve criminal process outside of the municipal boundaries. In connection with jurisdiction and serving warrants, the Court in Parrott v. Commonwealth, Ky., 408 S.W.2d 614, 615 (1966), said in part as follows:
"A search warrant, in this respect, is in the same category as a warrant of arrest. It directed to any peace officer, it is directed to all who have authority to act within the jurisdiction involved. . . ."
In OAG 81-300, copy enclosed, we dealt with police officers in a second class city, whose jurisdiction at that time was confined to the city limits, and the provisions of KRS 24A.140. Subsection (3) of that statute provides that when sessions of the district court are held in city facilities the city police shall be responsible for attending court, keeping order and providing the same services to district court as are provided by the sheriff to circuit court. We noted, however, that as relates to serving process, the court would have to take notice of the geographical jurisdictional limitations of the municipal police force.
Another statutory provision concerning the serving of a warrant by a city police department is KRS 431.420 which states:
"Any warrant issued by district court for an offense committed within a city shall be served by the police department of that city if the warrant is to be served within the city limits."
Thus, in conclusion, a police officer of a city of the sixth class, whose jurisdiction to arrest for offenses against the state is confined to within the municipal limits, has no authority to serve criminal process outside of the municipal boundaries. While, generally, the courts may determine the particular peace officer required to serve criminal process out of their courts, they must recognize the geographical jurisdictional limitations of police officers of sixth class cities.