State Agencies: Federal Law Enforcement Partners?

Federal law is enforced through a combination of public and private efforts. While federal civil statutes typically vest enforcement authority in a federal agency, state law enforcement agencies can also enforce federal law. This is known as state enforcement of federal law, and it empowers a different set of agents, such as elected attorneys general, who have incentives and capabilities that distinguish them from federal agents. State and local police officers are authorized to arrest individuals for violations of federal criminal law, but the legality of an arrest for a specific federal crime depends on whether federal law explicitly or implicitly allows them to make that arrest.

State and local police can arrest people for violating federal criminal laws

In Gonzales v. City of Peoria, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that federal law does not preclude local enforcement of the criminal provisions of the INA (722 F.2d 468, 475 (9th Cir. 1983)). The court ruled that local police officers may, subject to state law, constitutionally stop or detain people when there is a reasonable suspicion or probable cause that they have violated or are violating the criminal provisions of the INA.

Similarly, in People v. Barajas, the California Court of Appeal upheld the authority of California local police officers to make arrests for violations of two provisions of the INA, 8 USC § 1325. This case examined the city's policies, which authorized its police officers to arrest illegal immigrants for violating the criminal entry provisions of the INA (8 USC § 1324).

State enforcement of federal law empowers a different set of agents, such as elected attorneys general, whose incentives and capabilities distinguish them from federal enforcement agencies. These attorneys general are independent from the state legislature and governor and may represent different constituencies. As a result, state enforcement of federal law can lead to a unique model of enforcement and a unique form of state power.

In summary, while state and local police can generally arrest people for violating federal criminal laws, the specific circumstances and authorizations involved in each case will determine the legality of the arrest.

Federal law enforcement agencies can share jurisdiction with state and local officers

Many federal law enforcement agencies prefer this arrangement as it allows them to share the workload with state and local officers. It also means that state enforcement of federal law empowers a different set of agents—elected, generalist attorneys general—whose incentives and capabilities are distinct from the appointed policy specialists in federal enforcement agencies.

State and local police officers are authorized to arrest, without a previous complaint or warrant, any person for any offense in their jurisdiction when the person is apprehended in the act or on the speedy information of others. This authority applies to misdemeanours, which carry a penalty of up to one year in prison, and felonies, where imprisonment is over one year.

However, it is not always clear whether federal law allows state and local police officers to enforce civil provisions of federal law. For example, in the case of immigration law, the DOJ has indicated that state and local law enforcement agencies have the authority to enforce civil immigration laws when an individual's name appears in the federal National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database. However, it is unclear if this applies beyond the specific provisions of the NCIC.

State enforcement empowers a different set of agents, including elected attorneys general

Federal law is enforced through a combination of public and private efforts. While federal civil statutes typically vest enforcement authority in a federal agency, many also authorize civil enforcement by the states, usually through their attorneys general. State enforcement empowers a different set of agents, including elected attorneys general, whose incentives and capabilities set them apart from the appointed policy specialists who populate federal enforcement agencies. These elected attorneys general are independent from the state legislature and governor and may represent different constituencies.

For instance, on June 5, 2002, Attorney General John Ashcroft expressed the view that state and local law enforcement agencies have the inherent authority to enforce civil immigration laws when an individual's name appears in the federal National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database. Similarly, Connecticut law authorizes state and local police to arrest people for violations of federal criminal law. However, the ability to legally make an arrest for a specific federal crime depends on whether federal law explicitly or implicitly permits them to do so.

State enforcement of federal law allows state actors to enforce the laws of a different sovereign, thereby empowering a different breed of state representatives. This unique model of enforcement and state power enables states to adjust the intensity of enforcement and advance their interpretations of federal law.

State enforcement of federal law can lead to unique forms of state power

State enforcement of federal law introduces a layer of complexity by authorizing state actors to enforce the laws of a different sovereign entity. This arrangement empowers a different breed of state representatives, namely elected, generalist attorneys general, who differ from the appointed policy specialists within federal enforcement agencies. The incentives and capabilities of these state attorneys general set them apart from their federal counterparts, resulting in a brand of public enforcement that markedly differs from the familiar federal model.

The impact of state enforcement extends beyond law implementation. By vesting enforcement authority in state actors, states gain a potent means of influence, enabling them to adjust the intensity of enforcement and even interpret federal law through their own lens. This dynamic showcases how enforcement authority can serve as a tool for states to exert their power and shape the legal landscape.

The interplay between state and federal law enforcement is further nuanced by the concept of jurisdiction. Territorial jurisdiction comes into play when determining the responsible law enforcement entity for a particular area. Exclusive jurisdiction, for instance, dictates that only federal officers or agents can handle cases occurring in certain federal jurisdictions. Conversely, concurrent jurisdiction allows for shared law enforcement responsibilities between federal, state, and local officers, providing federal agencies with additional resources and support.

In conclusion, state enforcement of federal law goes beyond mere implementation of rules. It empowers a unique set of agents, fosters a distinct form of state power, and provides states with a means to influence policy and legal interpretation. The jurisdictional dynamics between federal and state law enforcement entities further shape the landscape of law enforcement, impacting the responsibilities and resources available to address crimes.

State enforcement is decentralised, acting on behalf of interests distinct from federal enforcers

State law enforcement agencies can enforce federal law, but the extent of their authority differs across states and the nature of the crime. State enforcement is largely decentralised, with states acting on behalf of interests that differ from those of federal enforcers.

State enforcement of federal law is a unique model of enforcement and a unique form of state power. It empowers a different set of agents—elected, generalist attorneys general—whose incentives and capabilities differ from those of the appointed policy specialists in federal enforcement agencies. State attorneys general are independent from the state legislature and governor and may represent different constituencies. This independence opens up new avenues for state-centred policy, empowering actors whose interests and incentives are distinct from those of state institutions that dominate other channels of federal-state dialogue.

For example, in 2002, Attorney General John Ashcroft indicated that the Department of Justice (DOJ) had adopted a new policy, stating that state and local law enforcement agencies have the inherent authority to enforce civil immigration laws when an individual's name appears in the federal National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database. This database is maintained by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. However, it is not entirely clear whether federal law allows state and local police officers to enforce the civil provisions of federal immigration law. This ambiguity was highlighted in a case where immigrant rights organisations submitted a request to the DOJ, seeking clarification on the new policy. The DOJ located but refused to disclose the relevant document. Ultimately, the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the DOJ must make the document public.

In terms of arrests, state and local police officers are authorised to arrest, without a previous complaint or warrant, any person for any offence in their jurisdiction when the person is apprehended in the act or based on speedy information from others. This authority applies to misdemeanours and felonies. If a crime occurs in an area with concurrent jurisdiction, either a federal or state/local law enforcement agency can respond, investigate, arrest, and charge the suspect. If a federal officer handles the case, the suspect will be tried in federal court. If a state or local officer makes the arrest, the case will go to a state or local court.

Frequently asked questions