State Police Powers: Enforcing Federal Laws?

Whether a state police officer can enforce federal laws is a complex question that depends on the specific circumstances and the laws in question. In general, state police officers are empowered to enforce federal laws in certain areas, particularly immigration law, through formal agreements or informal cooperative arrangements with federal immigration authorities. For example, Section 133 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) permits the delegation of certain immigration enforcement functions to state and local officers. State laws, such as in Connecticut, may also authorize state and local police to arrest individuals for violations of federal criminal law. However, the ability of state and local police to enforce federal laws may vary depending on the specific jurisdiction and the nature of the laws being enforced.

State police authority to enforce federal immigration law

The authority of state police to enforce federal immigration law has been a subject of debate, with some arguing that it is an exclusive federal power to maintain uniformity in enforcing those rules. However, there are certain circumstances where Congress has expressly authorized state and local law enforcement agencies to assist in enforcing federal immigration law.

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) §287(g) allows state and local law enforcement agencies to perform limited duties related to immigration law enforcement. The 287(g) program includes the Warrant Service Officer (WSO) model, where ICE trains and authorizes state and local law enforcement officers to execute ICE administrative warrants. These officers can perform arrest functions within jails and correctional facilities, but they are not authorized to interrogate alleged non-citizens about their immigration status. As of December 2024, 75 law enforcement agencies in 11 states had WSO agreements.

The 287(g) program has faced criticism for hindering community policing and community safety. In 2010, the Police Executive Research Forum interviewed Maricopa County law enforcement executives, who stated that enforcing federal immigration law damaged the relationship between law enforcement and the community.

State and local law enforcement agencies have also been involved in enforcing immigration law through joint federal-state operations. While the federal government has the exclusive power to enforce civil immigration law, states have argued that this does not preempt every state activity affecting aliens. Some states have passed measures authorizing state police to arrest certain categories of aliens who commit immigration status violations. However, the Supreme Court held in Arizona v. United States that states are generally preempted from arresting or detaining aliens based on suspected removability under federal immigration law without specific federal statutory authorization or instruction from the federal government.

In conclusion, while the federal government has exclusive authority over setting immigration rules, state and local law enforcement agencies can assist in enforcing federal immigration law under specific circumstances and agreements, such as the 287(g) program. However, there are ongoing debates and legal considerations regarding the extent and effectiveness of state involvement in immigration law enforcement.

State police arrest procedure for federal lawbreakers

While state police officers can generally enforce federal laws, the arrest procedure for federal lawbreakers is dependent on the state and the type of federal law broken. For example, Connecticut law authorises state and local police to arrest people for violations of federal criminal law. However, whether they can legally make an arrest for a specific federal crime depends on whether federal law explicitly or implicitly allows them to make an arrest for that crime.

In the case of United States v. Santana-Garcia, a Utah police officer stopped a vehicle for a traffic violation. The officer learned that the driver and passenger were not legally in the country and arrested them for suspected violation of federal immigration law. The court held that the officer had probable cause to arrest and that state and local police officers have the authority to investigate and arrest for violations of immigration law within their respective jurisdictions.

Federal immigration law also explicitly authorises state and local police officers to enforce provisions of immigration law under three circumstances. The first is a written agreement between the U.S. attorney general and a state or municipality in which state or local officers are deputised as immigration officers under federal supervision. The second is an emergency declaration by the U.S. attorney general due to an influx of aliens. The third concerns the enforcement of a specific criminal provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

State and local police officers are generally authorised to arrest, without a previous complaint and warrant, any person for any offence in their jurisdiction when the person is apprehended in the act or on the speedy information of others. This authority applies to misdemeanours and felonies.

State police enforcement of federal criminal law

State police officers can enforce federal criminal law in certain circumstances. While federal law does not explicitly prohibit state and local officers from enforcing federal criminal law, their ability to do so depends on whether federal law and state law allow them to make arrests for specific federal crimes.

In the context of immigration law, for example, federal law authorizes state and local police officers to enforce certain provisions. This includes civil provisions under three circumstances: a written agreement between the U.S. attorney general and a state or municipality, an emergency declaration by the U.S. attorney general due to an influx of aliens, and the enforcement of specific criminal provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

Court cases and opinions from various jurisdictions, including the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Gonzales v. City of Peoria, have supported the view that federal law does not preclude local enforcement of the criminal provisions of the INA. Additionally, Section 133 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) amended the INA to permit the delegation of certain immigration enforcement functions to state and local officers.

Outside of immigration law, the authority of state police to enforce federal criminal law may vary depending on the specific crime and the laws of the state in question. State and local police officers generally have the authority to arrest, without a previous complaint or warrant, any person for any offense within their jurisdiction. However, the Congress's power to prohibit a state from enforcing a federal law rests with the Supremacy Clause of the federal constitution, which states that the "laws of the United States" take precedence.

State police enforcement of federal civil law

State and local police officers have the authority to enforce federal criminal laws, including civil provisions, under certain circumstances. One circumstance is a written agreement between the state or local government and the US Attorney General, deputizing officers as immigration officers under federal supervision. The second circumstance involves the US Attorney General declaring an emergency due to a sudden influx of immigrants. The third circumstance is the enforcement of specific criminal provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

State police officers are authorized to arrest individuals for any offense within their jurisdiction. Court cases, such as Gonzales v. City of Peoria, have supported the view that federal law does not prohibit state and local officers from enforcing the criminal provisions of the INA. In this case, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the city's policies, which allowed police officers to arrest illegal immigrants for violating the INA's criminal entry provisions.

In another case, United States v. Santana-Garcia, a Utah police officer stopped a vehicle for a traffic violation and discovered that the driver and passenger were not legally in the country. The court ruled that the officer had probable cause to arrest both individuals for suspected violation of federal immigration law, indicating that state and local police have the implicit authority to investigate and arrest individuals for immigration law violations within their jurisdictions.

While federal immigration law explicitly authorizes state and local police to enforce certain provisions, it is unclear whether they can enforce civil provisions outside of the specified circumstances. Federal statutes and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) grant state and local police broad authority to assist in immigration enforcement. However, some states and localities have enacted their own immigration-related sanctions, raising legal questions about the imposition of additional criminal or civil penalties.

State police enforcement of federal traffic law

State police officers are authorised to enforce federal law, including federal traffic law, in several circumstances. For example, under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), state and local police officers can enforce federal immigration law in three circumstances. Firstly, if there is a written agreement between the U.S. attorney general and a state or municipality, state or local officers can be deputised as immigration officers under federal supervision. Secondly, the U.S. attorney general can declare an emergency due to an influx of aliens, authorising state police to enforce immigration law. Thirdly, state and local police can enforce a specific criminal provision of the INA.

State police officers are also authorised to enforce federal law on Department property, including traffic and motor vehicle laws. This is outlined in 38 U.S.C. § 902, which states that Department police officers can enforce "traffic and motor vehicle laws of a State or local government within the jurisdiction of which such Department property is located".

In addition, state police officers can enforce federal criminal law, including federal traffic law, if permitted by state law. A Congressional Research Service (CRS) report to Congress found that federal law does not preclude state and local officers from enforcing the criminal provisions of the INA. This view has been supported by court cases and the opinions of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and state attorneys general.

It is important to note that while state police officers have the authority to enforce certain federal laws, the specific laws they can enforce may vary by state and local jurisdiction. For example, in Nevada, a law enforcement agency cannot require a peace officer to issue a certain number of traffic citations or make a certain number of arrests.

Frequently asked questions