consulate. State v. Cevallos-Bermeo, 333 N.J. Super, 181
(App. Div.), cert. denied, 165 N.J. 607 (2000).
VII. GEOGRAPHICAL LIMITATIONS ON ARRESTS
A. Warrantless Arrests
Ordinarily a police officer can make a warrantless
arrest only within his or her own municipality. N.J.S.A.
40A:14-152; State v. Williams, 136 N.J. Super. 544, 548
(Law Div. 1975); State v. McCarthy, 123 N.J. Super at
- However, an officer can pursue persons who have
committed or are suspected of having committed felonies
to other states which have signed the Uniform Law on
Fresh Pursuit, N.J.S.A. 2A:155-1 et seq.
Police officers also may make warrantless arrests
beyond their municipal boundaries when in fresh
pursuit of persons they reasonably believe have
committed a high misdemeanor. See State v. White, 305
N.J. Super. 322 (App. Div. 1997) (statute did not
prevent municipal police officers from conducting
consent search outside jurisdiction); State v. Montalvo,
280 N.J. Super. 377, 381 (App. Div. 1995) (authority
extended to municipal police responding to another
municipality’s call for mutual aid). In addition,
municipal officers are entitled to pursue and arrest
persons throughout the State when the offense is
committed in the officer’s presence. See N.J.S.A. 40A:14-
152.1. Other exceptions to the rule include: motor
vehicle violations committed in the police officer’s
presence, N.J.S.A. 39:5-25 (see, supra at § III), and a
police officer’s making a citizen’s arrest in accordance
with the rules governing civilian arrests. State v. Cohen,
139 N.J. Super. 561, 564-65 (App. Div. 1976), aff’d with
modification, 73 N.J. 331 (1977).
B. Execution of Arrest Warrants
N.J.S.A. 40A:14-152 establishes that police officers
“shall have the power to serve and execute process issuing
out of the courts having local criminal jurisdiction in the
municipality....” This statute has been interpreted to
allow police officers to execute warrants only in their own
municipalities except in cases of fresh pursuit. See, State
v. Gadsden, 303 N.J. Super. 491, 503 (App. Div.), certif.
denied, 152 N.J. 187 (1997) (defendant’s arrest for
armed robbery by officers beyond municipality violated
N.J.S.A. 40A:14-152, but violation was procedural or
technical and did not violate defendant’s constitutional
rights warranting suppression of evidence). The State
Police, however, can execute warrants throughout the
State. N.J.S.A. 53:2-1.C. Port Authority Police
Port Authority Police have jurisdiction throughout
the entire Port District (defined in N.J.S.A. 32:1-3).
State v. Cohen, 73 N.J. 331 (1977).VIII. ARREST AND DWELLINGS
“For Fourth Amendment purposes, an arrest warrant
founded on probable cause implicitly carries with it the
limited authority to enter a dwelling in which the suspect
lives when there is reason to believe the suspect is within.”
Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. at 603, 100 S.Ct. at 1388,
63 L.Ed.2d at 661 (quoted in State v. Jones, 143 N.J. at 4).
In the absence of exigent circumstances or consent,
however, a search warrant is necessary before a law
enforcement officer may enter the home of a third party
to execute an arrest warrant. Steagald v. United States, 451
U.S. 204, 101 S.Ct. 1642, 68 L.Ed.2d 38 (1981).A warrantless, non-consensual entry into a suspect’s
home, in order to make a felony arrest, is prohibited
absent probable cause and exigent circumstances. See
State v. Bolte, 115 N.J. at 585-86; State v. Henry, 133 N.J.
at 104.An important factor to consider in determining
whether exigent circumstances exist is the gravity of the
underlying offense. See Illinois v. Rodriquez, 497 U.S.
177, 110 S.Ct. 2793, 111 L.Ed.2d 148 (1990)
(warrantless entry upheld when police reasonably
believed that third party had right to consent to police
entry); Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91, 110 S.Ct. 1684,
109 L.Ed.2d 85 (1990) (no exigent circumstances shown
to satisfy warrantless arrest and entry where defendant
staying in friend’s home); Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. at
740, 104 S.Ct. at 2091, 80 L.Ed.2d at 732 (disapproving
a warrantless nighttime entry into a private dwelling,
without consent, to make an arrest for a non-criminal
drunk driving offense); State v. Bolte, 115 N.J. at 579
(officer who observed motorist’s motor vehicle offenses
could not enter motorist’s home to make warrantless
arrest).If a valid arrest warrant is issued and executed at a
suspect’s home, and the police reasonably believed that
the person who was present was the suspect, the arrest is
valid even if the person arrested is the wrong person. See
e.g., Hill v. California, 401 U.S. 797, 91 S.Ct. 1106, 28