Should the US adopt a federal police force?

[Nizark]

So what does everybody think? What if instead of having local police, like LAPD, NYPD, etc. there was just one nationwide police force? No overall changes in numbers of officers, tactics or anything like that, just abolishing the locality of the PD's and simply having one uniform, regional chiefs, and things like that.

Thoughts?

[jmatucd]

being that different localities have different laws you can't expect police forces to be able to abide by the correct laws etc.. in effect, you would soon have a national system that would be forced to define & divide itself based on the jurisdictions (eg which DA do you use) defined by the laws of those lands

as a matter of function, the forces would separate themselves into a system resembling today's local system. There are also considerations of belonging to 'base stations / police stations' that correspond to where you live (shouldn't have to commute 90 miles etc)

So, if effect, you are advocating a system that differs from local PDs in name alone. If anything, such a system would detract from the quality of the policing.

So its a bad idea

[szr]

Being a federal republic; each state having it's own constitution and laws, so too, must each state and municipality have their own police forces. State police, that could potentially be manipulated by Washington, sounds ominous.. At least to me.

[Flagg]

In terms of procurement and administration I think it's a great idea...if it's actually practical

Think about how much redundancy would be eliminated and how many billions would be saved by consolidating weapons, vehicles, and equipment purchasing decisions into fewer and larger contracts as opposed to many and smaller.

Also, back office / administration consolidation could result in considerable savings as well in payroll, communications, etc..

I can't really comment about localized legal issues....nor the possibility of undue federal influence.

It would probably be a good idea to seek comment from "Old Heat" and "New Heat" California Joe and JiJo

[hank]

Under what authority would this police force exist? Congress alone has the power to spend. The President can suggest, as he always does with a budget, but ultimately he can't force Congress to spend if it does not want to. This would be the first hurdle.

Now, I think you could argue that necessary and proper clause combined with proteting the general welfare could justify the expense, creation, and authority. BUT, the SC has been very clear over the years, Congress does not have a general police power. I mean, the closest thing we have to this is FBI and they are limited to matters where Federal laws control.

The second problem is as someone else pointed out. Federal agents CANNOT enforce state laws. That is clearly covered under reserved powers for the states and probably by separation of powers.

I don't think it would be constitutional.

hank

[hank]

I did not make that very clear, I am sorry. Under the Constitution the President has the authority to enforce the laws. Executive branch = law enforcement at the Federal level. what would effectively happen here is that the federal executive would in effect be creating a federal agency funded by federal dollars to enforce state laws. I think there is a serious constitutional problem there.

Congress has no authority to legislate internal state matters unless those matters fit under one of Congress's enumerated powers. Common crimes are not the province of Congress if they are confined to a sinlge state.

Maybe thats a little clearer.

hank

[n4292936]

Being a federal republic; each state having it's own constitution and laws, so too, must each state and municipality have their own police forces. State police, that could potentially be manipulated by Washington, sounds ominous.. At least to me.
Brief as it is, this is exactly the rational that the US has followed for more than two centuries now. The US does have a few federal law enforcement agencies as it is, adding to the mix and reducing state obligations would burden the government far too much. State governments, in my opinion, are better placed to provide this service to the public. Federal training for certain law enforcement functions provided by the states may an idea though.

[hank]

Not to be picky but what aspect of Federal Republican government would prevent a federal police force? I don't understand. Maybe I am wrong.

Our constitution could easily give Congress general police powers as many state constitutions do. Here in GA we have the County, City, and the State police all enforcing state law. The same could work in a Federal Republic. This same system applies in TN I know and many other states as well.

It can't work here because Congress has no general police power to exercise and/or delegate to the executive branch. Congress simply does not have the power to spend for a Federal Law Enforcement Agency that woudl enforce the individual State's police powers. Only the states themselves can do that. Congress can, and does fund state police through the General Welfare clause, but in that situation the state's do the enforcing of their own laws, Congress just spends to promote general welfare through increased police protections.

hank

[hank]

Being a federal republic; each state having it's own constitution and laws, so too, must each state and municipality have their own police forces. State police, that could potentially be manipulated by Washington, sounds ominous.. At least to me.
Brief as it is, this is exactly the rational that the US has followed for more than two centuries now. The US does have a few federal law enforcement agencies as it is, adding to the mix and reducing state obligations would burden the government far too much. State governments, in my opinion, are better placed to provide this service to the public. Federal training for certain law enforcement functions provided by the states may an idea though.

The FBI has no authority to enforce state laws. The border patrol has no authority to enforce state laws. Each of the federal executive branch law enforcement agencies enforce the US Code only. Right?

If you commit a regular murder in one particular state and tht killing does not fit any federal statute, meaning you only broke a state law, I do not believe that the FBI may come in and arrest you instead of the state without a request or the commission of a federal crime. The reason is not the republic, its the powers reserved to the states clause in the Bill of Rights. Congress has no authority to sanction harmful activity solely within a state.

hank

[Herrmannek]

IMHO Craptastic law you've got there :) ... esspecialy federals can't catch state only criminalists, but I'm sure civilians can catch/investigate any criminal and hand them to proper authority without problems, why federals don't use that right, they are civilians to...

[szr]

btw We've got US Marshals which are a federal law enforcement agency, who can go anywhere in the US and arrest people. But ya, every state has its own State police/State troopers. I say, focus on getting these state agencies on some sort of universal communications network at the command level, which we're already doing. Having some way for state police to communicate with the dispatches of other states durring cross-state persuits and investigations, is the best way to go.

[hank]

btw We've got US Marshals which are a federal law enforcement agency, who can go anywhere in the US and arrest people. But ya, every state has its own State police/State troopers. I say, focus on getting these state agencies on some sort of universal communications network at the command level, which we're already doing. Having some way for state police to communicate with the dispatches of other states durring cross-state persuits and investigations, is the best way to go.

Federal Marshalls are authorized under the constitution as a means of upholding court orders. They are technically law enforcement, but they'er job is to see that Court orders are carried out.

In the Civil Rights movement of the Sixties, all the desegragation orders wre first attempted to be carried out by Marshalls and then other means if necessary. Congress has this power under Art II, Sec 2, Clause 2.

That is a good point though. Marshalls enforce only federal court orders.

That is not to say that if they see you break the law they can't arrest, but they are not tasked to go and actively enforce state law.

hank

[hank]

btw We've got US Marshals which are a federal law enforcement agency, who can go anywhere in the US and arrest people. But ya, every state has its own State police/State troopers. I say, focus on getting these state agencies on some sort of universal communications network at the command level, which we're already doing. Having some way for state police to communicate with the dispatches of other states durring cross-state persuits and investigations, is the best way to go.

Well, this suggestion is something Congress could pay for. Congress is authorized to spend, meaning give states money, for things like you suggest. The line is drawn when the monye goes to have Federal enforcement of purely state law.

hank

[Herrmannek]

I see its not forbiden to enage in local law by feds, because nowhere is writen it is forbiden, but this is not their task so they don't do that?
I'm correct?

[hank]

I see its not forbiden to enage in local law by feds, because nowhere is writen it is forbiden, but this is not their task so they don't do that?
I'm correct?

No I think it is forbidden. A federally funded agency cannot be tasked to enforce a state's law. It can if forced to. I guess an FBI agent could arrest you or at least detain you if he saw you commit a murder, but that is not his job and FBI would turn you over to state for prosecution because a "simple" murder with nothing that qualifies as Federal Crime is a state crime subject to state penalty.

hank

[Laconian]

Even in the Federal system there are limits on what certain agencies can enforce. For example, the FBI (which has some of the broadest STATUTORY limits) won't bring a case of mail theft to the US Attorney's Office for prosecution; it would be brought by Postal Inspectors. Counterfeiting by Secret Service, Title II weapons by ATF, Title 21 (narcotics) by DEA, etc. There has to be some Federal nexus for Federal prosecution.

As Hank said, because of the states' rights clause, each state is responsible for it's own policing. Federal agents may be given peace officer status in the state (and they are, but usually there are limits on the police power of Federal agents to enforce a state law.) For example, a Federal agent in GA can act as a state peace officer in crimes of violence or a felony committed in his presence upon probable cause, but the case will more than likely be prosecuted in state court not Federal court. In other states the powers may be more or less depending on the states laws. Hence the ATF/DEA/DUSM/FBI/Customs agent can't pull somebody over for speeding on I95 or make a burglary arrest (state charge) without a warrant.

Even creating a Federal police force consolidating all Federal law enforcement under one agency would be extremely difficult because of the variety of Federal laws and the function of different agencies. And we just don't want one agency with that kind of power.

[mi35d]

More than enough law enforcement agencies running around.

Heck, depending on your state, The Environmental State police could pull you over for speeding.

[hank]

For example, a Federal agent in GA can act as a state peace officer in crimes of violence or a felony committed in his presence upon probable cause, but the case will more than likely be prosecuted in state court not Federal court. In other states the powers may be more or less depending on the states laws.

Goods points Laconian. One thing about the not being prosecuted by in Federal court for a "run of the mill" felony. Its not possible because only Federal Prosecutors can charge criminals in the District Courts of the Federal System and murder is not a Federal Crime. Now if you murder somone and then transport the body across the state line, that is a Federal Crime. Likewise, a hate crime is a Federal Crime as a violation of Civil Rights under the constitution.

Did you see Mississippi Burning? I have no idea how accurate that movie was but one thing that happened is logical even if inaccurate. They arrested the killers and charged them with murder in MS. They being the FBI in MS to investigate hate crimes by order of the US AG. They charged the killers with murder in MS state court because its a state crime, not a federal crime. Then when they guys got set free with a little home-cooking from a racist judge, they charged them with Civil Rights violations in Federal Court and got around the bad MS state judges.

This exactly right. FBI had jurisdiction because they had probable cause to believe a Federal Crime had been committed, namely hate crime as a violation of Civil Rights act. After FBI made the arrests the Federal Prosecutors did not feel confident making the Civil Rights violation claims stick so they got MS state prosecutors to charge them with murder in MS state court. When that failed they investigated more and did it again in Federal Court.

I had not thought about your idea to consolidate the various Federal Agencies. That would definitely be OK under the Constitution, but your practical problems make sense.


Hence the ATF/DEA/DUSM/FBI/Customs agent can't pull somebody over for speeding on I95 or make a burglary arrest (state charge) without a warrant

Are you sure they need a warrant? I think maybe reasonable suspicion of speeding justifies a vehicle stop no matter what agency you work for. Maybe I am wrong but I think even the DEA can stop a drup dealer with a reasonable suspicion that the driver was breaking the law by speeding, then use the automobile exception to the constitution's warrant requirement to search the trunk if something they see or smell makes them thing you have drugs. The DEA agent could not write you a ticket, but he could, I think, radio a local cop to come and write you the ticket. You may know a reason why I'm wrong.

Good post laconian, are you law enforcement here in the Peach state?

hank

[2Sheds_Jackson]

I think a nationwide federal law enforcement agency would be a fine idea (even if it is currently unworkable). They should have broad powers, and maintian a high profile to discourage law breaking. Their uniform should be distinctive as well, to easily set them apart from the state agencies. May I suggest;

http://www.diggerhistory.info/images/uniforms/uniform-ss_officer-ss-sentry.gif

I'd suggest that they also be constantly asking for "your papers please"

[Laconian]

The use of a local to make the stop for speeding & then turn the stop into a search is a common tactic -especially on joint TFs. But the DEA agent could not make the stop for speeding himself, he would need the local to do it. My example is for the Fed agent on duty driving around and someone passes him doing 90mph on the interstate - he can't just stop the guy for speeding he has no authority. In the same manner, a Fed agent can't just make an arrest for burglary (without a Federal nexus)based on PC - unless it occurred in his presence (based on the powers the Fed is given by the state he is in). He may make a detention & call a local & turn him over, but he would not be the booking officer at the local jail. If he makes a warrant arrest through a local warrant the guy would be turned over to the locals.

BTW, I actually was a cop in Decatur 89-91. Used to hang out at the Trackside Tavern, but the guy I knew started Eddie's Attic later. I teach at my agency academy at FLETC

[hank]

The use of a local to make the stop for speeding & then turn the stop into a search is a common tactic -especially on joint TFs. But the DEA agent could not make the stop for speeding himself, he would need the local to do it. My example is for the Fed agent on duty driving around and someone passes him doing 90mph on the interstate - he can't just stop the guy for speeding he has no authority. In the same manner, a Fed agent can't just make an arrest for burglary (without a Federal nexus)based on PC - unless it occurred in his presence (based on the powers the Fed is given by the state he is in). He may make a detention & call a local & turn him over, but he would not be the booking officer at the local jail. If he makes a warrant arrest through a local warrant the guy would be turned over to the locals.

BTW, I actually was a cop in Decatur 89-91. Used to hang out at the Trackside Tavern, but the guy I knew started Eddie's Attic later. I teach at my agency academy at FLETC

Cool, thanks for clearing that up. I have only lived here about a month and a half so I have no idea what you are talking about but I'm gueesing those are restaurants or bars? Wife and I love Decatur and all the great local restaurants down on the square, but those names are not familiar to me.

I see what you mean on the DEA guy. His PC is based on a state law violation. I did not think about that. But am I right that if a DEA agnet had PC to think a car contained drugs, he could just pull the guy over with Reasonable suspicion and get hte automobile exception to search the truck. Let me say that another way, can Federal Agents use the same exceptions to the warrant requirements that local cops get? I'm thinking yes but I dont' know.

Thanks again for clearing that up.

hank

[Laconian]

Yes, he can make the stop on PC for drug trafficking and use the auto exemption for a search, however the US Attorney's would always prefer a warrant. It makes the suppression issue much cleaner. The old saying goes, "Nobody mines a warrantless search until you find something."

Congrats on your JD. I hope you use your powers for good only...

[hank]

Yes, he can make the stop on PC for drug trafficking and use the auto exemption for a search, however the US Attorney's would always prefer a warrant. It makes the suppression issue much cleaner. The old saying goes, "Nobody mines a warrantless search until you find something."

Congrats on your JD. I hope you use your powers for good only...

I am going to try. Preciate the kind word. I won't be defending criminals or suing errant docs/driver/cops if that makes you feel any better.

hank