The power of the Sheriff over Federal agents

Status
Not open for further replies.

tomrkba

Member
Joined
May 30, 2010
Messages
2,365
I posed the following question in the SCOTUS denies cert on MT gun law thread.

Can Montana sheriffs revoke Federal agents' ability to enforce the law in their counties?

I think they have agreements in place to allow the Feds to come into their county, but I am not sure about that. How does this power work and what is currently in place?
 
I think where a law has been passed deliberately with the intent to create conflict between state and federal law, it will go to court pretty quickly. It will probably be argued and be a temporary nuisance, but the federal law will prevail.

Of course it is also possible that the Feds will pretend to ignore it, depending on projected expense and a larger strategynoflining up certain cases for challenge.
 
Well, here in CA the El Dorado county sheriff revoked the ability of the USFS to enforce STATE laws.......though they can still enforce Federal law.

This was because of massive complaints about harassment.
 
[Guys, let's stick to literal, factual answers to the question, not guesses and supposition about what the feds MIGHT do. And this needs to be specifically limited to GUN law ... it's borderline for being on-topic, so keep it gun-related.]
 
tomrkba Can Montana sheriffs revoke Federal agents' ability to enforce the law in their counties?
No.
There is nothing to "revoke" in the first place. Second, Montana sheriffs don't get to decide who enforces federal law.......the feds do.


I think they have agreements in place to allow the Feds to come into their county, but I am not sure about that. How does this power work and what is currently in place?
Nonsense. No "agreement" is necessary for a Federal officer to perform his duties.
 
The sheriff has no power over Federal agents within their scope of enumerated powers.

The problem is they blew up the Interstate Commerce Clause many years ago and just about everything under the sun that anyone might or might not do is considered interstate commerce and therefore a Federal concern.

Mike
 
While state and local law enforcement can not be required to assist federal agents enforce federal law, they may not prevent federal agents and federal courts from enforcing federal law. That's part of what Article VI of the Constitution means:
...This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding....
 
I thought the Bighorn County (Wyoming) sheriff (what's his name, Matthis? Mack? something like that) won some kind of 10th Amendment case against the feds a few years ago, and all federal police actions in his county had to be coordinated with his office and meet his approval.
 
zxcvbob said:
I thought the Bighorn County (Wyoming) sheriff (what's his name, Matthis? Mack? something like that) won some kind of 10th Amendment case against the feds a few years ago, and all federal police actions in his county had to be coordinated with his office and meet his approval.
And I don't believe you.

Please find the case and some actual documentation. If you don't recall the name of the sheriff, why should we accept your characterization of the result?
 
I think you refer to Richard Mack, who was an Arizona sheriff. There was a court case and he did prevail. Beyond that will require research.... Cause I can't remember details...
 
And I don't believe you.

Please find the case and some actual documentation. If you don't recall the name of the sheriff, why should we accept your characterization of the result?

Don't be an ass. I told you what county it was, and the sheriff's name starts with an 'M'. That's all I remembered off the top of my head (I think that's pretty good.) I'll see if I can find the case and I'll report back.
 
ILikeLead said:
I think you refer to Richard Mack, who was an Arizona sheriff...
That case was Printz v. U.S., 521 U.S. 898, 117 S.Ct. 2365, 138 L.Ed.2d 914 (1997).

It concerned certain provision of the Brady Act which (1) required the U. S. Attorney General to establish a system for performing background checks of persons buying guns; and (2) required state law enforcement officials to perform those checks until the federal system became operational. The Court struck down the latter provisions of the Act on the theory that the Constitution does not authorize the federal government to compel state officials to execute federal policy. Of course it is more complicated than. That's merely the Cliff's Noted version.

And it's because of that case that I wrote in post 8:
Frank Ettin said:
...state and local law enforcement can not be required to assist federal agents enforce federal law,...

However, that's not anywhere close to what zxcvbob wrote in post 10.
 
Okay, it's Sheriff Dave Mattis, the case was Castaneda v. USA... and there was no ruling at all about the 10th Amendment; it was widely misreported (unfortunately)
http://www.wyd.uscourts.gov/pdfforms/96cv99.pdf
In fact there was no ruling at all (except perhaps to dismiss the case once it had been settled). And note the last paragraph of Judge Downes document, to which you linked:
...Any person who interferes with federal officers in performance of their duties subjects themselves to the risk of criminal prosecution.

You have confirmed that I was correct to ask for documentation. What you originally wrote in post 10 was wrong and misleading.

Thank you for now providing the correct information.
 
Not federal law, but state law as corresponds to national forest in California:

http://www.mtdemocrat.com/news/sheriff-strips-forest-service-of-power/

Sheriff strips Forest Service of power
By Cole Mayer

El Dorado County Sheriff John D’Agostini has been having problems with the U.S. Forest Service since he took office more than two years ago — and now is stripping it of its state law enforcement power in the county and the Eldorado National Forest.

“I have a folder an inch thick of e-mail and snail mail,” D’Agostini said, all complaints about the Forest Service. He estimates about 50 complaints total. They were all “complaints about services from the Forest Service. Or, I should say, lack thereof.”

. . .


He looked at the Memorandum of Understanding between EDSO and the USFS, looked into case law and the state Attorney General’s opinions.

The Sheriff sent the USFS a letter on June 22, giving USFS officials a 30-day notice before they are stripped of their law enforcement power.

“California Penal Code Section 830.8(a) limits the authority of Forest Service criminal investigators and law enforcement officers to exercise the powers of arrest of a California peace officer and to enforce California statutes without the written consent of the Sheriff or Chief of Police in whose jurisdiction they are assigned,” D’Agostini’s letter read. “I am terminating the agreement and giving 30 days written notice as required. Effective Monday, July 22, 2013, the cooperative agreement will no longer exist.” It goes on to say that the law enforcement officials of the USFS no longer have his consent or authorization to enforce state laws in the county, nor will EDSO accept evidence submitted by them.

“They can’t enforce state law,” D’Agostini said. That includes vehicle and penal codes, on both private and federal land. They can, however, enforce federal laws.

Forest Service Special Agent in Charge Scott Harris told the Mountain Democrat, “We have received the letter and are in the process of reviewing it. We have a meeting scheduled with the El Dorado County sheriff on Wednesday to consider our options for resolving this issue.”
 
My feeling is it is largely symbolic, a warning to the federal government that they will fight it.

Will it do anything? I don't know. Colorado and Washington don't have the authority to deregulate marijuana, but they did it -- oh, except you can still go to jail for it, still be fired from your job, it can still be illegal on a county-wide basis, and banks won't deal with marijuana dispensaries, forcing them into massive cash handling transactions. We'll see how long it goes before people end up prosecuted for it again.

It's definitely a good signal and attention grabber. Beyond that, I don't know if the whole idea of nullifying federal laws will really change much for the state, especially with current readings of the Interstate Commerce Clause
 
I don't know if the whole idea of nullifying federal laws will really change much for the state

If statewide the governor commands all state patrol to cease enforcement of federal law, and the sheriffs are in agreement, you don't think that would really change much on the state level? .Fed doesn't have the resources to actually enforce the average citizen who's off the radar. Not something I'd love to test out with a potential felony charge, but the fact of the matter is that federal law is largely enforced at the will of the state LEO.
 
dose this have anything to do with Montana's "if it's made here , sold here and stays here" gun bill they pasted a few years back ?




.
 
Gaiudo said:
Not federal law, but state law as corresponds to national forest in California...
Which would, it appears, be entirely proper.

Federal authorities have no power conferred at the federal level to enforce state laws. Any authority they might have to do so must be conferred on them by the State.

dakota.potts said:
...Colorado and Washington don't have the authority to deregulate marijuana, but they did it...
Well, they actually do -- as a matter of state law. But conduct which is legal under state law can still be illegal under federal law.

The state-federal duality is something that is, perhaps, at least non-intuitive, if not outright counter intuitive. But it is there. There can be conflicting and overlapping rules, and which applies, how and with what result can be difficult to sort out. That's why there are a lot of judicial decisions on topics related to choice of law and preemption issues.

savanahsdad said:
dose this have anything to do with Montana's "if it's made here , sold here and stays here" gun bill they pasted a few years back ?
Yes.

That law led to a lawsuit, Montana Shooting Sports Association v. Holder, No. 10-36094, (9th Cir., 2013). The Federal Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the suit and ruled that the Montana law upon which plaintiff relied is preempted by federal law, which federal law Congress had the power under the Commerce Clause to enact. The Ninth Circuit relied substantially on Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005) and United States v. Stewart, 451 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2006).

The plaintiffs then asked the Supreme Court to hear the case. And now the OP has reported that the Supreme Court has declined to hear the case. That means that the decision of the Ninth Circuit stands and is the law at present in the Ninth Circuit.
 
If statewide the governor commands all state patrol to cease enforcement of federal law, and the sheriffs are in agreement, you don't think that would really change much on the state level? .Fed doesn't have the resources to actually enforce the average citizen who's off the radar. Not something I'd love to test out with a potential felony charge, but the fact of the matter is that federal law is largely enforced at the will of the state LEO.
Seems to me that as the ATF holds as much power as they do with gun laws, you could still get a knock on your door in Montana for building machine guns, even if they made it legal under state law.
 
you could still get a knock on your door in Montana for building machine guns

Yes, of course you could. ATF still holds jurisdiction. It's just a question of resources. When is the last time you actually encountered an ATF agent in daily life?

Let's be clear: I'm not saying that anyone should break federal law. I'm simply stating that local enforcement is key to federal enforcement, and withdrawing aid is an excellent way for state powers to neuter federal enforcement.
 
. . . fact of the matter is that federal law is largely enforced at the will of the state LEO.
Well, I actually have direct experience in this for over a decade. That statement is completely, and utterly false.
 
Federal authorities have no power conferred at the federal level to enforce state laws.
That is not correct.

You may want to research the "Assimilative Crimes Act" (18USC13), which allows the federal government to prosecute state offenses committed in areas of exclusive federal jurisdiction in a particular state, if there is no equivalent federal statute that covers the offense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top