TRANSPORTATION OF LEGALLY ARRESTED PERSON INTO ANOTHER COUNTY FOR TEMPORARY CONFINEMENT ‑- TRANSPORTATION OF SAID PERSON FROM TEMPORARY CONFINEMENT TO COUNTY HAVING JURISDICTION OVER ORIGINAL VIOLATION.
A patrolman may temporarily incarcerate one who has been legally arrested in a county other than that in which he will be tried without losing jurisdiction over the subject matter or the person to be tried.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
March 24, 1953
Honorable James A. Pryde
Washington State Patrol
Olympia, Washington Cite as: AGO 51-53 No. 503
You have requested an opinion on the following question:
"When a person has been legally arrested, may the arresting officer transport such prisoner into another county for temporary confinement, and later, transport said prisoner from temporary confinement within a county, into another county to a court having jurisdiction over the original violation causing the arrest?"
It is the conclusion of this office that a patrolman may temporarily incarcerate one who has been legally arrested in a county other than that in which he will be tried without losing jurisdiction over the subject matter or the person to be tried.
There are no statutes in the code of the State of Washington granting the power or authority to do what has been outlined, nor is there any statutory authority [[Orig. Op. Page 2]] that it cannot be done. Authority for the conclusion reached by this office is based on the following reason: The question asked involves the basic problem of bringing one from one jurisdiction into another and then back to the jurisdiction wherein he is to be tried. The cases cited herein demonstrate that this can be done without impairing the jurisdiction of the court.
The general rule is that where a person accused of a crime is found within the territorial jurisdiction wherein he is charged, the right to put him on trial for the offense charged is not impaired by the fact that he was brought from one jurisdiction by illegal means such as kidnaping, unlawful charges, fraud or the like. U. S. v. Insull, 8 Fed. Supp. 310; Carey v. Brady, 39 Fed. Supp. 515; v. Illinois, 119 U.S. 436; Cook v. Hart, 146 U.S. 183; Pettibone v. Nichols, 203 U.S. 192.
In the application of the rule it has been stated that the states uniformly apply the rule that the unlawful manner of bringing a person accused of crime under the jurisdiction of the court does not impair the jurisdiction of the court to try him. The reason for the rule is that where there is a detention of an accused under legal process for wrongs against the state, holding him is not to be condoned because of violence or wrong committed against his person by individuals who brought him into the jurisdiction by force or other illegal means even though such individuals may be subject to civil or criminal liability for their unlawful acts.
In the application of the general rule in the state courts the arrest of an accused in one county on a warrant issued in another county without the endorsement of the magistrate of the county where the arrest was made as required by statute does not divest the court of the county issuing the warrant of jurisdiction over the accused. The theory is that the irregular or illegal manner in which the accused is placed under the jurisdiction of the court does not divest the court of such jurisdiction, seePeople v. Harner, 135 N.Y.S. 529; Ex parte Ah Men, 77 Cal. 198.
Very truly yours,
CYRUS A. DIMMICK
Assistant Attorney General