Local Police And Federal Law: Who Enforces What?

The question of whether local police can enforce federal law is a complex one, with the answer depending on the specific circumstances and the nature of the laws in question. In the US, the majority of law enforcement work is carried out by state and local police, and they are generally authorized to enforce federal law, particularly in the case of federal criminal law. However, there are exceptions and variations, particularly when it comes to civil law, where federal statutes often vest enforcement authority in a federal agency. For example, the civil provisions of federal immigration law are an area where the role of local police is less clear, and this has been the subject of legal debate. The jurisdiction of the land where the law is being enforced also plays a role, with federal land falling under different categories of jurisdiction, which determine whether local or federal law enforcement is responsible.

Local police arrest authority

Local police officers are generally 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 misdemeanors, which carry a penalty of up to one year in prison, and felonies, which carry a penalty of more than one year in prison.

In the context of federal law, the authority of local police to make arrests is less clear-cut. While local police officers can enforce federal law, the specific circumstances under which they can do so depend on various factors. For example, in the case of 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 (Immigration and Nationality Act). This means that local police officers may, subject to state law, constitutionally stop, detain, or arrest individuals when there is a reasonable suspicion or probable cause that they have violated the criminal provisions of federal immigration law.

However, it is important to note that the civil provisions of federal immigration law may be more ambiguous. While some sources indicate that state and local police have the inherent authority to enforce these aspects, it is not explicitly stated in federal law. The authority of local police to enforce federal law also depends on the specific jurisdiction and the nature of the property involved. For example, on federal lands with proprietary jurisdiction, state and local law enforcement officers handle calls for service as if the land were privately owned, regardless of the property's ownership. In contrast, on lands owned exclusively by the federal government, federal officers take over all law enforcement responsibilities, and local police do not typically investigate or make arrests.

Ultimately, the arrest authority of local police officers in relation to federal law is complex and can vary depending on the specific circumstances, jurisdiction, and nature of the property involved.

Federal immigration law

The enforcement of federal immigration law by local and state police has been a controversial topic, with several jurisdictions signing agreements with the federal government to allow their law enforcement agencies to perform limited duties related to immigration law. While local and state police can arrest people for violations of federal criminal law, it is unclear whether they can enforce civil provisions of federal immigration law.

In the case of Gonzales v. City of Peoria, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that federal law does not prevent local enforcement of the criminal provisions of the INA (Immigration and Nationality Act). Local police officers may, subject to state law, stop or detain individuals when there is reasonable suspicion or probable cause that they have violated the criminal provisions of the INA. Similarly, in People v. Barajas, the California Court of Appeal upheld the authority of local police officers to make arrests for violations of specific provisions of the INA.

However, civil immigration law enforcement has traditionally been viewed as a federal responsibility. The INA's civil provisions have been assumed to constitute a pervasive and preemptive regulatory scheme, leaving no room for direct state or local involvement. The Department of Justice (DOJ) has expressed conflicting views on this matter, with a 1996 memo concluding that state and local police have the inherent authority to enforce the civil aspects of immigration law.

State enforcement of the criminal provisions of the INA is generally consistent with the state's police power to make arrests for criminal acts and the expectation that states cooperate in enforcing federal criminal laws. Nonetheless, the involvement of local authorities in implementing immigration law has sparked debates about proper training, finite resources, possible civil rights violations, and community impact.

Federal nexus

In the case of proprietary jurisdiction, the federal government does not take on the state's law enforcement obligations. State and local law enforcement officers handle calls for service as if the land were privately owned, without regard to the property's ownership.

Exclusive legislative jurisdiction means that the federal government assumes all law enforcement responsibilities. Federal officers and agents handle investigations and cases, and local police do not enter the facility to investigate or arrest suspects.

Concurrent legislative jurisdiction is when both federal and state governments have law enforcement authority over a piece of land.

The majority of law enforcement work is done by state and local police. However, there are instances where federal law enforcement may take precedence. For example, 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. The court ruled that local police officers may, subject to state law, constitutionally stop or detain individuals when there is a reasonable suspicion or probable cause that they have violated the criminal provisions of the INA.

Additionally, proposals to address local law enforcement issues at the federal level must be enacted under a constitutionally enumerated power or the Necessary and Proper Clause; otherwise, authority is reserved for the states.

State enforcement of federal law

The authority of state and local police officers to enforce federal law varies depending on the specific context and jurisdiction. For instance, in Connecticut, state and local police are authorized to arrest individuals for violations of federal criminal law, but the applicability of this authority to civil provisions of federal immigration law remains unclear. Similarly, in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case, Gonzales v. City of Peoria, the court held that federal law does not prohibit local enforcement of the criminal provisions of the INA, but the specifics may vary in other states or jurisdictions.

The majority of law enforcement work is typically carried out by state and local police, and this includes federal lands and properties, particularly those under proprietary jurisdiction, where state and local law enforcement handle calls for service as they would for private property. However, in certain cases, such as federal lands under exclusive legislative jurisdiction, federal officers assume all law enforcement responsibilities, and local police do not generally investigate or make arrests.

Federal law enforcement training

FLETC's mission is to "train those who protect our homeland." It serves as an interagency law enforcement training body for 105 United States federal law enforcement agencies. FLETC provides tuition-free and low-cost training to state, local, campus, and tribal law enforcement agencies through the Rural Policing Institute (RPI) and the Office of State and Local Training. This training equips local law enforcement officers with the necessary skills and knowledge to handle a range of situations, from routine policing to more specialized areas like maritime law enforcement.

The history of FLETC dates back to the late 1960s when studies revealed an urgent need for professional instructors, modern facilities, and standardized course content for law enforcement training. Congress authorized funds, and in 1970, the Consolidated Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (CFLETC) was established as a bureau of the US Department of the Treasury. Initially operating from temporary facilities in Washington, D.C., FLETC later relocated to the former Naval Air Station Glynco in Georgia in 1975, which became its headquarters and main campus.

FLETC has partnerships with various organizations, including the Los Angeles Regional Maritime Law Enforcement Training Center, to develop comprehensive training programs. Additionally, FLETC has oversight and program management responsibilities for the International Law Enforcement Academies (ILEA) in several countries, including Botswana, El Salvador, and Peru. The organization's parent department, the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS), supervises its administrative and financial activities. FLETC's faculty and staff comprise professionals from diverse backgrounds, including federal officers and investigators on short-term assignments.

Through this comprehensive training and strategic partnerships, FLETC plays a crucial role in preparing local police to enforce federal laws effectively, protecting America's people, property, and institutions.

Frequently asked questions