STATE v. KEEFE
394 P.3d 1272
| Okla. Crim. App. | 2017Background
- Off-duty Tulsa PD Officer Ryan Rogers observed Ginna Keefe weaving and speeding eastbound on Highway 51 late at night and followed her toward the Broken Arrow city boundary.
- Rogers initially radioed Broken Arrow PD for assistance, but after observing increasingly dangerous driving (nearly striking a barrier and crossing many lanes), he activated lights/siren and stopped Keefe after he was outside Tulsa city limits.
- Broken Arrow Officer Chad Burden arrived, observed signs of impairment, administered SFSTs, arrested Keefe for DUI (drugs), and obtained a consensual blood test; Keefe reportedly admitted taking Xanax.
- Keefe moved to suppress, arguing the stop was unlawful because Rogers acted outside his jurisdiction and as a private citizen who could not act under color of law; the special judge granted suppression.
- The State appealed; the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, holding Rogers’ actions were justified under the citizen-arrest statute and a narrow public-safety exception permitting limited use of color-of-law measures when necessary.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Keefe's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the off-duty officer acted as a private citizen outside his jurisdiction and thus lacked authority to stop using lights/siren | Rogers was acting as a private citizen under 22 O.S. §202 and could effect a citizen’s arrest for public offenses observed | Rogers acted under color of law outside his jurisdiction; use of lights/siren rendered the stop unlawful | Court: Officer acted as a private citizen effecting a citizen’s arrest under §202; his use of lights/siren fell within a limited public-safety exception and was permissible |
| Whether recognized exceptions to jurisdictional limits (hot pursuit, mutual aid, warrant) applied | N/A — State conceded those exceptions did not apply but relied on §202 and public-safety grounds | Emphasized absence of those jurisdictional exceptions and precedent barring color-of-law actions by off-jurisdiction officers | Court: Though none of the traditional jurisdictional exceptions applied, the citizen-arrest statute and a narrow public-safety exception justified Rogers’ conduct |
| Whether the Community Caretaker Exception or similar public-safety doctrine justified the stop | Public-safety grounds justified immediate action to protect driver and others; officer’s primary motive was safety | Stop was investigative/seizure beyond citizen powers and thus unconstitutional | Court: Adopted four-factor public-safety test (urgency; need to protect from immediate danger; officer’s primary safety motive; minimal use of color-of-law) and found factors satisfied |
| Whether the exclusionary rule should bar evidence if there was any illegality | Exclusion unnecessary because officer acted to protect public, his intent was not investigatory, and discovery of evidence was inevitable | Evidence resulted from unlawful stop and should be suppressed | Court: Exclusion unnecessary; application of inevitable discovery/attenuation and deterrence analysis counseled against suppression |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Kieffer-Roden, 208 P.3d 471 (2009 OK Cr.) (officer outside jurisdiction may act as private citizen under §202; public-safety rationale implicit)
- Phipps v. State, 841 P.2d 591 (1992 OK Cr.) (off-duty/off-jurisdiction officers cannot act under color of law absent authority)
- United States v. Sawyer, 92 P.3d 707 (2004 OK Cr.) (police authority generally does not extend beyond jurisdiction; exceptions listed)
- Underwood v. State, 252 P.3d 221 (2011 OK Cr.) (imminent life-saving need can excuse procedural requirements)
- Coffey v. State, 99 P.3d 249 (2004 OK Cr.) (warrantless entry or action may be justified by immediate need to protect life)
- Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984) (inevitable discovery doctrine)
- State v. Sittingdown, 240 P.3d 714 (2010 OK Cr.) (exclusionary rule’s primary purpose is deterrence)