Law Enforcement Overlap: Multiple Charges For The Same Crime?

It is possible for an individual to be charged by different law enforcement agencies for the same crime. This is because state and federal agencies have separate jurisdictions, and both can arrest, charge, and convict individuals for the same offense. For example, if a person is arrested by local police officers for a state crime, they can also be arrested by federal agencies such as the FBI or DEA for the same crime but under federal law. In such cases, the individual will likely serve time in both state and federal prisons.

Different jurisdictions, same charges

In the United States, the Fifth Amendment guarantees protection against double jeopardy, which prevents the government from prosecuting someone for the same crime twice. However, this protection does not extend to cases where an individual is charged with the same crime in two different jurisdictions. This is known as the "dual sovereignty doctrine", an exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause.

The dual sovereignty doctrine states that when a criminal suspect breaks the laws of two different jurisdictions, they have committed two separate offenses for double jeopardy purposes. In other words, law enforcement can treat the same conduct as two separate criminal acts if the conduct violates the laws of more than one jurisdiction. For example, if a crime is committed in one state and then continues into another, each state (or jurisdiction) can prosecute the individual for the offense without violating the Double Jeopardy Clause.

This doctrine was established in the 1922 case of United States v. Lanza. In this case, the defendant was charged with making and distributing alcohol during Prohibition, violating both state and federal laws. The Supreme Court held that the federal prosecution did not violate the defendant's rights, as state and federal governments were separate sovereigns and could prosecute the defendant equally.

The application of the dual sovereignty doctrine can lead to sentencing conflicts when an individual faces similar charges in two different jurisdictions. In such cases, the punishments can be carried out concurrently or consecutively at the discretion of the courts. The jurisdiction that sentences the defendant first typically has primary jurisdiction and sentencing priority, but this can be ceded to the other jurisdiction.

The complexity of facing multiple charges in different jurisdictions demands legal expertise to navigate transparency in the charging process, guarantee procedural fairness, and advocate for reasonable punishment limits. It is crucial to seek legal counsel from a defense attorney who is well-versed in the laws of multiple jurisdictions and can advise on the rights available to the defendant.

Statute of limitations

In the United States, the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution states that no person can be "twice put in jeopardy of life or limb" for the same offence. This is known as the double jeopardy rule. However, the dual sovereignty doctrine is an exception to this rule. This means that if a single act violates the laws of two states, the act is treated as two separate offences, and the individual can be tried and convicted in both a state and federal court. Similarly, if a person is acquitted in state court, the federal government can still seek an indictment for the same offence. This is because state and federal governments are separate sovereigns, and they are free to charge a defendant with identical crimes.

A statute of limitations sets a time limit on the prosecution of an offence. If the prosecution is not commenced within a specified period after the completion of the offence, the defendant may be able to seek dismissal of the charge. The statute of limitations can vary depending on the jurisdiction and the nature of the charge. For example, in the US, most criminal statutes of limitations fall within the range of one to ten years, with two to three years being the most common. However, some states do not impose time limits for certain types of crimes, such as sex offences or treason. In the case of US military charges, there is a five-year statute of limitations for all charges except those facing a court-martial on a capital charge.

Search and arrest warrants

In the US legal system, warrants play a crucial role in safeguarding individuals' rights while enabling law enforcement to conduct investigations and make arrests. Search and arrest warrants are two key types of warrants that often arise in legal matters. While they serve distinct purposes and follow different protocols, both warrant types must be supported by probable cause.

A search warrant is a legal document that authorises law enforcement to search a specific location, vehicle, or individual for evidence related to a crime. It must be issued and signed by a neutral judge or magistrate, based on the presentation of probable cause. This means there must be a reasonable belief that evidence of criminal activity can be found in the specified location. Search warrants must be executed within a specified period, typically during the day, and law enforcement must generally knock and announce their presence, unless a "no-knock" warrant has been authorised.

Arrest warrants, on the other hand, authorise law enforcement to take a specific individual into custody. These warrants are typically more straightforward as they focus on the apprehension of a person rather than the search for evidence. An arrest warrant will include the name of the individual, the alleged offence, and any other relevant information, such as a physical description. Once an arrest warrant is issued, law enforcement can lawfully arrest the person wherever they are found. In some cases, an arrest warrant is not required if the crime is witnessed or there are exigent circumstances, such as an immediate threat to public safety.

It is important to note that the dual sovereignty doctrine allows for prosecution by both state and federal governments for the same offence, as they are considered separate sovereigns. This means that an individual can be charged and convicted separately under state and federal laws, and the Fifth Amendment's double jeopardy clause does not prohibit this.

Loaned to federal agencies

In the United States, state and federal laws are separate entities, allowing each state the power to make laws as long as they do not contradict federal law. This means that an individual can be charged with a crime by both state and federal agencies. State law enforcement agencies, such as local city or county police officers, enforce laws within their jurisdiction of city, county, and state. Federal law enforcement agencies, on the other hand, include the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF).

An individual can be arrested, charged, and convicted by both state and federal agencies for the same crime. For example, a person can be first arrested by the sheriff's department for possession of a controlled substance and then arrested by the DEA, a federal agency, for the same charge a few hours later. In such cases, it is likely that the state charges will be dismissed, and the federal charges will proceed, but this is not a requirement.

State and federal agencies often work together on criminal cases involving drug trafficking, weapons charges, and child pornography. Additionally, federal agencies have the power to arrest, charge, and try defendants who commit crimes across state lines, on federal property, or federally defined crimes such as immigration and drug crimes. Federal agencies also play a crucial role in investigating white-collar crimes, including financial institution fraud, embezzlement, money laundering, and healthcare fraud.

Knowing your rights

Being stopped by law enforcement can be a stressful and confusing experience. It is important to know your rights and how to assert them to ensure that law enforcement does not violate them. Here are some key points to remember:

Right to Remain Silent

You have the right to remain silent. This means that you do not have to answer any questions about where you are going, where you are coming from, what you are doing, or where you live. You do not have to answer questions about your citizenship or how you entered the country. If you wish to exercise this right, say so out loud. In some states, you may be required to provide your name if asked for identification.

Right to Refuse Consent to Search

You do not have to consent to a search of yourself or your belongings. However, police may pat down your clothing if they suspect you are carrying a weapon. Refusing consent may not stop the officer from carrying out the search, but making a timely objection can help preserve your rights in any later legal proceedings.

Right to an Attorney

If you are arrested, you have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford one, you will be appointed a government lawyer. You do not have to answer any questions without your lawyer present.

Right to Record and Photograph

You have the right to record and take photographs or videos of your interaction with law enforcement. Police officers may not confiscate or demand to view your recordings without a warrant, and they may not delete them under any circumstances. If an officer orders you to stop recording or to hand over your device, you can refuse and remind the officer that recording is your right under the First Amendment.

Right to Be Free from Unreasonable Seizure

Under the Fourth Amendment, you are protected against "unreasonable seizure." This means that law enforcement must have a valid reason to arrest you, usually in the form of probable cause or an arrest warrant.

It is important to remember that these rights apply regardless of the law enforcement agency involved. In the case of being charged by different agencies for the same crime, it is likely that the state charges will be dismissed, and the federal charges will proceed, but this is not a requirement.

Frequently asked questions