Local LEO's enforcing federal law? Allowed or not?

[self preservation]

More ignorance of common law, instead of research making dumb excuses.

Explain.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Explain.

Not much explaining needed. Any person with average intelligence knows if you can't legally do something, refusing to do it is redundant. Sorry that slipped by you.

 

[BB62]

Explain.

Ignore the man behind the curtain!!! This is the great and powerful OZ speaking!!

I think you've reached the limits of WW's citing ability, my friend.

 

[self preservation]

Not much explaining needed. Any person with average intelligence knows if you can't legally do something, refusing to do it is redundant. Sorry that slipped by you.

Didn't slip by me at all. If you are claiming that a Sheriff (politician) can't/doesn't make outrageous claims, even if they are redundant, never happens, then either you live in Mayberry where life is perfect and everyone is honest, or you have no idea how things work. Most people have no idea what LEO's can or can not do. Good chance that the Sheriff himself doesn't even know what he can or can not do. So making such a claim can and does slide under most peoples radar, and a good chance that the Sheriff really does think that he is taking a stand. ^ BTW, I enjoy how you start name calling and throwing insults when you are called out on your hypocrisy.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Didn't slip by me at all. If you are claiming that a Sheriff (politician) can't/doesn't make outrageous claims, even if they are redundant, never happens, then either you live in Mayberry where life is perfect and everyone is honest, or you have no idea how things work. Most people have no idea what LEO's can or can not do. Good chance that the Sheriff himself doesn't even know what he can or can not do. So making such a claim can and does slide under most peoples radar, and a good chance that the Sheriff really does think that he is taking a stand. ^ BTW, I enjoy how you start name calling and throwing insults when you are called out on your hypocrisy.

And it is a insult to the president that you would think he would not take full advantage of such a situation. Not that I am an Obama fan, but clearly he has you beat in understanding law.

 

[BB62]

Florida Marine Patrol routinely enforces federal law...

I would guess that either a) Florida has laws parallel to Federal law, or b) FM officers have been deputized (and might be partially paid by) the Feds.

...I have also enforced federal laws both as a conservation officer and a deputy...

So are you telling us that there were no parallel state laws and that you were not deputized to do so?

...Enforced and were funded by the federal government to enforce immigration laws...

Yes, paid and more likely deputized, unlike America's Sheriff (Arpaio) these days. You say...?

...Border patrol also uses local and state laws for RAS to make stops on suspected vehicles...

Not without state approval/deputizing they don't.

...State DOT enforces federal laws on a daily basis...

Without parallel state laws?? What laws are you referring to?


In my neck of the woods, individual members of various local PDs are deputized to do drug interdiction at the Indiana/Ohio border, but, according to what you assert, I should call the Sheriff and tell him not to bother with the formality?

 

[WalkingWolf]

Where are the cites requiring these parallel laws. A police officer does need to be deputized to operate OUTSIDE of his jurisdiction. I have not seen one site posted making it illegal for a police officer to enforce all laws within his jurisdiction. IN FACT in most states NON police can arrest for State, and Federal crimes, with NO paralell laws, and not being deputized. So it is really silly to believe there is a law that takes that power away from sworn officers, if there is please cite it?

 

[BB62]

Where are the cites requiring these parallel laws. A police officer does need to be deputized to operate OUTSIDE of his jurisdiction. I have not seen one site posted making it illegal for a police officer to enforce all laws within his jurisdiction. IN FACT in most states NON police can arrest for State, and Federal crimes, with NO paralell laws, and not being deputized. So it is really silly to believe there is a law that takes that power away from sworn officers, if there is please cite it?

I ask specific questions - you respond with generalities, and more questions. I'm done with you.

Before I ignore your continued ramblings, I will acknowledge that you said at least one thing factually correct - and officer needs to be deputized to operate OUTSIDE of his jurisdiction. Of course, in your world, ANY law that affects an individual in his geographical jurisdiction is considered to be "under his jurisdiction" and "authority".

 

[WalkingWolf]

I ask specific questions - you respond with generalities, and more questions. I'm done with you.

Before I ignore your continued ramblings, I will acknowledge that you said at least one thing factually correct - and officer needs to be deputized to operate OUTSIDE of his jurisdiction. Of course, in your world, ANY law that affects an individual in his geographical jurisdiction is considered to be "under his jurisdiction" and "authority".

Goodbye!:lol:

 

[self preservation]

And it is a insult to the president that you would think he would not take full advantage of such a situation. Not that I am an Obama fan, but clearly he has you beat in understanding law.

If you say so. After all, you have never been wrong a day in your life so far. Why start today? Once again you answer a response with an insult. I was once told that people that resort to name calling and insults do so because they no longer have anything of value to say. I assume this is the case. I'd love to stick around and play the "lets whip em out and see who's is bigger" game, but I have a feeling that regardless of the outcome I would lose to you. You seem to get joy from chastising people when they can't provide what you think that they should. But yet, when you find yourself in their shoes and are unable to provide the same request then "we are all idiots" for expecting you to do so in the first place.

 

[WalkingWolf]

If you say so. After all, you have never been wrong a day in your life so far. Why start today? Once again you answer a response with an insult. I was once told that people that resort to name calling and insults do so because they no longer have anything of value to say. I assume this is the case. I'd love to stick around and play the "lets whip em out and see who's is bigger" game, but I have a feeling that regardless of the outcome I would lose to you. You seem to get joy from chastising people when they can't provide what you think that they should. But yet, when you find yourself in their shoes and are unable to provide the same request then "we are all idiots" for expecting you to do so in the first place.

This is very clear and simple, if you cannot get it, it is not my fault.

Arrest powers are set in English common law, all the people have them. The only people who do not are by laws restricting them from those powers. The US did not even have police in any great numbers in the early 19th century. That responsibility fell upon a small number of civil servants and THE PEOPLE. Unless a state, like NC, has laws restricting arrests by ordinary people those powers are there. And unless the police are restricted by law from exercising authority those powers are there. Even in NC private citizens have the right to detain in the event of a crime, state or federal. I hate to keep repeating the same thing but "what is not illegal is legal".

States create mirror laws for what most entities do, control, and funding. Fines paid in federal court do not reimburse local depts, it is completely up to the feds to agree to reimburse for those expenses. As in the case of the late seventies when under RR direction our county was reimbursed for every illegal alien we snatched up.

I wish I could say I am sorry you are wrong, but this is all common sense and covered in elementary school.

 

[SpringerXDacp]

Although it appears the below link is based on Connecticut law with emphasis on immigration, it may shed some light, though not legal opinion/advise, on this specific topic:

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/rpt/2005-R-0457.htm

You asked whether state and local police could arrest people for violations of federal criminal laws. You were especially interested in criminal provisions of the federal immigration and nationality act. Our office is not authorized to give legal opinions and this report should not be considered one.

It appears, local, county, and state, may detain/arrest for federal crimes based on the law of each state that allow it.

 

[self preservation]

This is very clear and simple, if you cannot get it, it is not my fault.

Arrest powers are set in English common law, all the people have them. The only people who do not are by laws restricting them from those powers. The US did not even have police in any great numbers in the early 19th century. That responsibility fell upon a small number of civil servants and THE PEOPLE. Unless a state, like NC, has laws restricting arrests by ordinary people those powers are there. And unless the police are restricted by law from exercising authority those powers are there. Even in NC private citizens have the right to detain in the event of a crime, state or federal. I hate to keep repeating the same thing but "what is not illegal is legal".

States create mirror laws for what most entities do, control, and funding. Fines paid in federal court do not reimburse local depts, it is completely up to the feds to agree to reimburse for those expenses. As in the case of the late seventies when under RR direction our county was reimbursed for every illegal alien we snatched up.

I wish I could say I am sorry you are wrong, but this is all common sense and covered in elementary school.

WOW. Ok. What am I wrong about? I did not and have not disagreed with any of this ^. The ONLY comments that I have made are 1) giving you a hard time when you couldn't produce a cite at ANOTHER users request. 2) Saying that Sheriffs (or anyone) could make redundant statements (about anything) if he thought it would please voters and keep him in office. 3) That most people wouldn't know that the Sheriff is FOS by making such statements. 4) The Sheriff may may not know himself what he is authorized to do. 5) Pointed out the name calling and insults. 6) Reminded you that not every comment made can be backed with proof, as well a few other odds and ins. But I don't see where I ever said that your above statements were not accurate. And you must have went to one awesome elementary school as a child if this stuff was in your text books.

 

[WalkingWolf]

WOW. Ok. What am I wrong about? I did not and have not disagreed with any of this ^. The ONLY comments that I have made are 1) giving you a hard time when you couldn't produce a cite at ANOTHER users request. 2) Saying that Sheriffs (or anyone) could make redundant statements (about anything) if he thought it would please voters and keep him in office. 3) That most people wouldn't know that the Sheriff is FOS by making such statements. 4) The Sheriff may may not know himself what he is authorized to do. 5) Pointed out the name calling and insults. 6) Reminded you that not every comment made can be backed with proof, as well a few other odds and ins. But I don't see where I ever said that your above statements were not accurate. And you must have went to one awesome elementary school as a child if this stuff was in your text books.

You didn't give me a hard time, asking for a cite that does not exist gives YOU a hard time. Nothing else you said made one lick of sense, and if it doesn't make sense it just doesn't.

Again it is not my fault either your education is lacking, or you just never caught on.

 

[self preservation]

You didn't give me a hard time, asking for a cite that does not exist gives YOU a hard time. Nothing else you said made one lick of sense, and if it doesn't make sense it just doesn't.

Again it is not my fault either your education is lacking, or you just never caught on.

Funny thing is, I'm feeling the exact same way about you right now. I guess I am a big dummy because I still can't figure out what it is that I'm suppose to be comprehending that I'm not. And I have no idea what I am having trouble catching onto. The only real comment that I have made was when I basically said that a politician can and sometimes does say any old dumb thing if he thinks it will protect his job. I'm not real sure how that doesn't make "a lick of sense" to you, but if you will tell what what is confusing you I will re-write it in a different manner and I will ever change the color of my font to a different color for each and every sentence so it will appear as if I have written it in crayon if that will help.

 

[F350]

In most states citizens have the same powers of arrest for felonies they observe. In NC a citizen may not arrest, only detain.

Conservation officers, marine officers typically enforce federal laws, every time a police officer holds a suspect on a warrant from another state it is based on federal law and the constitution.

I really wished some of you actually know what you are talking about, before giving others false impressions that could get them in serious trouble.

I would ask if that is clear enough but you have made it clear that you are in a fog.

OK then; why during the oil crises in the 70s when the US Congress was proposing a federal 55 MPH speed limit it was argued that if the feds did it only federal officers could enforce it, so you have to have FBI agents running speed traps? So instead Congress threatened to withhold federal highway funds from any state that did not enact 55 MPH limits so state cops could enforce it.

Also what was the big brew-ha-ha about the feds first certifying Sheriff Joe to enforce federal immigration law, then de-certifying his dept?? So now it would be illegal for Maricopa County Sheriff's dept to make arrests under federal immigration law?

Just 2 incidences that sprang to mind.

 

[self preservation]

OK then; why during the oil crises in the 70s when the US Congress was proposing a federal 55 MPH speed limit it was argued that if the feds did it only federal officers could enforce it, so you have to have FBI agents running speed traps? So instead Congress threatened to withhold federal highway funds from any state that did not enact 55 MPH limits so state cops could enforce it.

Also what was the big brew-ha-ha about the feds first certifying Sheriff Joe to enforce federal immigration law, then de-certifying his dept?? So now it would be illegal for Maricopa County Sheriff's dept to make arrests under federal immigration law?

Just 2 incidences that sprang to mind.

I remember this last election seeing several surveys on the internet (I know that just because it was on the internet doesn't make it valid) of "do you vote yes or no on these issues?" It asked if you supported or opposed gay marriage, if you supported or opposed medical marijuana, if you supported or opposed immigration reform...etc. One question that generated a lot of discussion around the water cooler was "do you support local police having the authority to enforce federal laws?" Take it for what it's worth but that was a question that was being asked.

On a side note, I have heard of local LEO's taking illegal immigrants to the county jail for being illegal immigrants. I was told this by a guy that worked at a jail years ago. He said that the local LEO's stopped doing this because every time that they would call immigration to report this, immigration would say something to the effect of "unless you have a bus load of them in custody it isn't worth our time." At that point in time all of the inmates were released and local LEO basically said to hell with it.

 

[georg jetson]

State Law enforcement agencies are agencies of the executive branch. The powers of those agencies are set by statute. Here's an example in my state of Louisiana for the Department of Public Safety and Corrections.

§5. Authority of other law enforcement officers; parade marshals in Calcasieu Parish and Lake Charles

A. All law enforcement officers of this state or of any political subdivision thereof invested by law with authority to direct, control, or regulate traffic are authorized to enforce the provisions of this Chapter and regulations of the department and the commissioner adopted pursuant hereto, within their respective territorial jurisdictions, except as otherwise provided by law or this Chapter.

B. The governing authorities of the city of Lake Charles and Calcasieu Parish may employ parade marshals who shall have the authority to direct, control, and regulate traffic for parade events only. However, such parade marshals shall not have the authority to issue traffic citations.

You can see that section (A) authorizes enforcement of this chapter to "All law enforcement officers of...".

Federal law works the same way. The OP will find the answer to his question in the federal statutes. It cannot be said for certain that any law enforcement agency can enforce any federal law. You must look at each law individually by finding out which agency is charged with it's enforcement and which LEAs are given authority to provide enforcement.

The OP's question is NOT a "yes" or "no" type question.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Again what is not illegal is legal, there are no cites for what does not exist, only a idiot would think otherwise. :lol:

That applies to the citizenry not government and its agents. Government is supposed to be constitutionally restricted in most of this country and authority needs to be granted.

I find it disgusting how much toys our locals get from the feds and how much they cooperate with the feds, especially since our state has legalized things the feds still don't like. The locals should be restricted to state/local law.

 

[WalkingWolf]

That applies to the citizenry not government and its agents. Government is supposed to be constitutionally restricted in most of this country and authority needs to be granted.

I find it disgusting how much toys our locals get from the feds and how much they cooperate with the feds, especially since our state has legalized things the feds still don't like. The locals should be restricted to state/local law.

Primary word is restricted, and that is done by either the constitution or the law. Meaning if it is not covered by the constitution directly it has to spelled out in law what is restricted. Which brings us back to "what is not illegal, is legal".

We cannot restrict the police on this issue without restricting ourselves. As it stands we all have powers of arrest or detention, which if courts would hold LE accountable would support liberty. It is just that government likes to keep it a secret that all people have arrest or detention powers, unless limited by the states. And then the states limit what a member of the people can make a arrest for.

When it boils down to it, police are the people just like the rest of us. But some want them separate which helps support the problem with them being treated different when they commit crimes. As it stands now I CAN detain a individual in NC for violation of GFSZA without any special police powers. I chose not to, but I might detain somebody for bank robbery, a federal crime. It would be the choice of the gov whether to charge with armed robbery in state court, or bank robbery in federal court, or both.