Mayors And Federal Law: Arrests For Non-Compliance?

While there are no explicit cases of a mayor being arrested for not following federal law, there are instances of mayors being sued. For example, members of the Occupy Movement sued the mayor, claiming their arrests violated their constitutional rights, and in a separate incident, a mayor was sued for their involvement in the arrest of a single mother. In the US, local police can arrest anyone, including federal agents, if they have probable cause to believe a state or local law is being broken. However, federal agents can break some state and local laws while enforcing federal law, and to avoid arrest, they simply need to identify themselves.

Federal agents not identifying themselves

In response, Congress passed a new requirement for federal military and civilian law enforcement personnel involved in the federal government's response to a "civil disturbance" to wear visible identification of themselves and their government entity. This was included in the National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 6395). While this was a step towards transparency and accountability, it is important to note that this law only applies to specific circumstances of "civil disturbances".

In general, law enforcement officers, including federal agents, do not have a legal obligation to disclose their identities or agency affiliations, even when asked directly. This lack of a federal requirement for identification allows for the establishment of secret police forces, which is unacceptable in a democracy. However, certain municipalities have enacted laws requiring police officers to identify themselves, such as New York City's Right to Know Act, which mandates that officers provide their name, rank, command, and shield number at the start of some interactions with civilians.

Despite the lack of a federal statute, federal agents typically identify themselves when working with state or local law enforcement agencies. They are limited to enforcing federal laws with the assistance or permission of state or local agencies, and their investigations can be hindered if they do not identify themselves. In addition, state and local police can arrest federal agents if they have probable cause to believe they are breaking state or local laws and are not identified as federal agents enforcing federal law.

While there may be valid reasons for federal agents to conceal their identities, such as undercover operations or sting operations, the lack of a consistent identification requirement can lead to concerns about accountability and the potential for abuse of power.

State and local police powers

In the United States, the federal government and state and local governments share police powers. Police powers refer to the fundamental ability of a government to enact laws and enforce order within their territory for the betterment of the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of their inhabitants. The division of police powers in the US is delineated in the Tenth Amendment, which states that any powers not explicitly delegated to the federal government are reserved for the states or the people.

State and local police can arrest anyone they have probable cause to believe is breaking state or local law. Federal law enforcement officers (LEOs) can break some state and local laws while enforcing federal law, and they do not have a legal duty to disclose their identities or agencies of affiliation. However, to avoid arrest, federal LEOs must identify themselves, as state and local LEOs can arrest federal LEOs if they have probable cause to believe they are breaking state or local law and are not aware that the individual is a federal LEO enforcing federal law.

State and local governments exercise police powers through the enactment and enforcement of laws and regulations by their legislative and executive branches. State police powers are limited by the state constitution, powers exclusively held by the federal government, the Takings Clause, and the incorporation of fundamental federal rights through the Fourteenth Amendment. State laws and regulations must not infringe upon any rights protected by the US Constitution or their state constitutions and must not be unreasonably arbitrary or oppressive.

While there is no federal statute requiring law enforcement officers to disclose their identities, certain municipalities have adopted laws requiring police officers to identify themselves if asked. For example, under New York City's Right to Know Act, officers must provide their name, rank, command, and shield number to civilians at the start of some interactions.

Mayor's approval required for camping on public property

While there is no explicit information on whether a mayor can be arrested for not following federal law, state and local police can arrest anyone, including federal agents, if they have "'probable cause' to believe that a state or local law is being broken.

Now, regarding your question about camping on public property, it is important to note that the rules and regulations for camping on public lands can vary depending on the location and the managing authority. In general, camping on public lands is allowed, but there are often specific restrictions and requirements that must be followed. For example, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) offers numerous opportunities for camping on public lands, but certain activities may be prohibited or restricted, such as campfires, alcohol consumption, and pet ownership. Additionally, there may be limits on the number of people and vehicles per campsite, and campers are usually expected to follow "leave no trace" principles to minimize their impact on the environment.

In the case of Portland, Mayor Ted Wheeler has proposed a ban on outdoor camping in the city. This proposal is an attempt to address the city's homelessness issue and restrict camping on public property. The new proposal does not outright ban public camping, but it limits the types of activities that people experiencing homelessness can engage in while camping on public property. For example, building a fire, using a propane heater, or dismantling and selling bicycles would be prohibited. However, it's important to note that this proposal has faced legal challenges, and a previous version of the policy was blocked due to concerns about cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.

To answer your question directly, it seems that while a mayor's approval may not be explicitly required for camping on public property, local regulations and policies can significantly impact the permissibility and conditions of such camping. It is always advisable to check with the relevant local authorities and land management agencies to understand the specific rules and regulations for camping in a particular area. These rules can vary depending on the location and the specific needs and concerns of the community.

Mayor's immunity from liability

In the United States, the federal, state, and tribal governments generally enjoy sovereign immunity from lawsuits. Local governments in most jurisdictions are also immune from some forms of suit, particularly in tort. This principle of sovereign immunity in US law was inherited from English common law, which held that "the king can do no wrong".

Sovereign immunity, also known as governmental immunity, means that the government is not liable to suit unless it consents. Its liability in a suit cannot be extended beyond the plain language of the statute authorizing it. In some situations, sovereign immunity may be waived by law. For example, the Federal Tort Claims Act waives immunity if a tortious act of a federal employee causes damage, and the Tucker Act waives immunity over claims arising from contracts to which the federal government is a party. Congress has also waived sovereign immunity for patent infringement claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a), but this statute limits the remedies available to the patent holder.

The Supreme Court has held that local legislators, including city mayors, have absolute immunity from personal liability under 42 U.S.C. §1983 when acting in their legislative capacity. For example, in a case brought by a former employee of the City of Fall River, Massachusetts, the Supreme Court reversed the lower courts' decisions and held that local legislators, including the mayor, were entitled to absolute immunity from §1983 liability for their legislative activities. The Court found that the budgetary processes through which the employee's position was eliminated were "quintessentially legislative" actions.

However, it is important to note that sovereign immunity is not absolute. In the 1961 Muskopf v. Corning Hospital District decision, the California Supreme Court decided that "total governmental immunity [...] does not exist" and would no longer protect the state and other public entities from civil liability for their torts. Additionally, if a plaintiff can demonstrate that the government's action was done in bad faith, they may be able to receive damages despite sovereign immunity. For example, if government officials close access lanes to a bridge for repair, the action is considered to be in good faith, and the state cannot be sued. However, if the lanes were closed to intentionally cause traffic jams as retaliation against a mayor, such lawsuits could proceed.

Mayor's liability for police actions

While there is no federal statute requiring officers to disclose their identity, federal laws do address police misconduct, including that of mayors and governors. These laws cover the actions of state, county, and local officers, as well as those working in prisons and jails. They also apply to federal law enforcement officers.

There are three types of circumstances under which a municipality may be held responsible for police misconduct. The first involves the arrest or detention of a suspect pursuant to a municipal law or policy that is illegal on its face, such as the arrest of a Jehovah's Witness for distributing leaflets. The second type consists of certain abuses of process by law enforcement officials, excluding actual brutality. The third variety is the traditional police brutality case.

To establish liability against a municipality, there must be an affirmative link between the actions or policies of the city and the unconstitutional deprivation at issue. For example, an articulated policy favoring or promoting police brutality. The absolute immunity from civil liability for police misconduct formerly enjoyed by municipal corporations has now been withdrawn by the Supreme Court. In Monell v. Department of Social Services, it was held that local governmental entities are persons and therefore are not wholly immune from suit.

Mayors and governors do not have the authority to order state police to arrest unmarked federal agents. However, state and local police can arrest anyone, including federal agents, if they have probable cause to believe they are breaking state or local law and are not aware that the person is a federal agent enforcing federal law. To avoid arrest, federal agents must identify themselves.

In conclusion, while mayors may not be directly arrested for not following federal law, they can be held liable for police misconduct and may face civil lawsuits if their policies or actions result in unconstitutional deprivations of rights.

Frequently asked questions