(1) When a person hasbeen arrested without a warrant, he may be released by the arresting authorityon its own authority if:

 

(a) The arresting  officer or a responsible command officer of the arresting authority is  satisfied that there are no adequate grounds for criminal complaint against  the person arrested; or

 

(b) The offense for  which the person was arrested and is being held is a misdemeanor or petty  offense and the arresting officer or a responsible command officer of the  arresting authority is satisfied that the person arrested will obey a summons  commanding his appearance at a later date.

(1.5) No personarrested for any crime or offense, the underlying factual basis of whichincludes an act of domestic violence as defined in section 18-6-800.3 (1), C.R.S.,shall be released at the scene of the alleged crime pursuant to subsection (1)of this section.

(2) If the person isreleased in accordance with subsection (1) (b) of this section, he shall begiven a summons and complaint as provided for in sections 16-2-104 and 16-2-106and shall sign a written acknowledgment of its receipt and a promise to appearat the time and place specified.

Source:L. 72: R&RE, p. 199,§ 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 39-3-105. L. 94: (1.5) added, p. 2034, § 12, effectiveJuly 1.

Thestatutes and procedural rules do not require that person charged with amisdemeanor be given a copy of the complaint prior to being released on bail.Weld County Court v. Richards, 812 P.2d 650 (Colo. 1991).

Appliedin People v. Rothe, 43 Colo. App. 274, 606 P.2d 79 (1979).

16-3-106         - Peace officer may pursue offender.

When any peace officer isin fresh pursuit of any alleged offender, having a warrant for his arrest orhaving knowledge that such warrant has been issued, or, in the absence of anarrest warrant, when the offense was committed in the officer's presence or theofficer has reasonable grounds to believe that the alleged offender hascommitted a criminal offense, and the alleged offender crosses a boundary linemarking the territorial limit of his authority, such peace officer may pursuehim beyond such boundary line and make the arrest, issue a summons andcomplaint, or issue a notice of penalty assessment.

Source:L. 72: R&RE, p. 199,§ 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 39-3-106.

Am.Jur.2d. See 5 Am. Jur.2d, Arrest, § § 69, 72.

C.J.S.See 6A C.J.S., Arrest, § 18.

Purposeof section. The general assembly, in enacting this section, intended tolimit peace officers to exercising their arrest powers and making their lawenforcement efforts within the territorial limits of their authority and torequire that local peace officers be advised of, and participate in, theextraterritorial law enforcement activities of other peace officers. People v.Wolf, 635 P.2d 213 (Colo. 1981); People v. Florez, 680 P.2d 219 (Colo. 1984).

Thissection, by negative inference, limits peace officers' authority to arrest tothe territorial boundaries of their jurisdiction unless they are in freshpursuit or are accompanied by officers of the jurisdiction in which the arrestis made. People v. Lindsey, 805 P.2d 1134 (Colo. App. 1990).

Violationsof this section are not per se violations of constitutionally protected rights.People v. Thiret, 685 P.2d 193 (Colo. 1984); People v. Vigil, 729 P.2d 360(Colo. 1986).

Whenthis section has been violated by a peace officer, evidence obtained asa result of the violation should be suppressed if the violation also infringes aconstitutional right of the defendant, such as the right to be free fromunreasonable searches and seizures. People v. Vigil, 729 P.2d 360 (Colo. 1986).

Anarrest in violation of the statute does not mandate suppression of evidenceobtained therefrom unless the violation is willful or so egregious as to violatethe defendant's constitutional rights. People v. Lindsey, 805 P.2d 1134(Colo. App. 1990); People v. Loggins, 981 P.2d 630 (Colo. App. 1998).

Thissection held not to require the suppression of evidence where police officeraccompanied injured person to a hospital outside his jurisdiction,emergency room personnel discovered cocaine on the injured person, and thecocaine was delivered to the officer. People v. Loggins, 981 P.2d 630 (Colo.App. 1998).

Thedeparture by an officer from the scene of the crime to get the assistance ofother officers, returning forty-five minutes later, did not constitutesuch a break in the chain of events that at the time of the ensuing arrest hewould have been required to have had a warrant, inasmuch as an arrest incidentalto fresh pursuit need not be immediate, recognizing that considerable time maybe needed to procure necessary assistance; the peace officers had probable causeto arrest, acted without unreasonable delay, and thus a warrant was notrequired. Schindelar v. Michaud, 411 F.2d 80 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 396 US956, 90 S. Ct. 426, 24 L. Ed.2d 420 (1969) (decided under repealed § 39-14-5,C.R.S. 1963).

Wherethe police officer began chasing the defendant in Denver and remained in freshpursuit until the automobile was finally stopped in Aurora, his authority topartake in the arrest and related matters in the form of an inventory searchexisted beyond the boundaries of his original jurisdiction by virtue of thissection. People v. Roddy, 188 Colo. 55, 532 P.2d 958 (1975).

"Freshpursuit" defined as in section 16-3-104. Although the definitionin § 16-3-104(1)(c) was promulgated by the general assembly to define"fresh pursuit" as used in that section, it is persuasive in definingthe same term as used in this section. Charnes v. Arnold, 198 Colo. 362, 600P.2d 64 (1979).

Threecriteria used in determining "fresh pursuit". Three criteriaare to be utilized in analyzing what police activity can be categorized as freshpursuit. They are: (1) The police must act without unnecessary delay; (2) thepursuit must be continuous and uninterrupted, but there need not be continuoussurveillance of the suspect or uninterrupted knowledge of his whereabouts; and(3) the relationship between the commission of the offense, the commencement ofthe pursuit, and the apprehension of the suspect -- the greater the length oftime, the less likely the police action constituted fresh pursuit. Charnes v.Arnold, 198 Colo. 362, 600 P.2d 64 (1979).

Characterizationas "fresh pursuit" not precluded even though officer does not followsuspect's route. Where the police responded immediately to a callconcerning a hit-and-run accident and promptly pursued the only lead available,the address of the owner of the vehicle, the fact that the officer did notfollow the suspect's route did not preclude the characterization of his actionas fresh pursuit. Charnes v. Arnold, 198 Colo. 362, 600 P.2d 64 (1979).

Executionof arrest warrant where no fresh pursuit. Where the element of"fresh pursuit" is not present, it is immaterial who executes anarrest warrant provided that individuals with lawful authority to make an arrestare actually present at the scene of the arrest and participate in the arrestprocess. People v. Schultz, 200 Colo. 47, 611 P.2d 977 (1980).

Appliedin People v. Lott, 197 Colo. 78, 589 P.2d 945 (1979).