Can an individual state "ban" a federal law-enforcement agency from operating in their state?

[Kruska]

Can an individual state "ban" a federal law-enforcement agency from operating in their state?​

Where is the FBI’s authority written down? | Federal Bureau of Investigation

The FBI has a range of legal authorities that enable it to investigate federal crimes and threats to national security, as well as to gather intelligence and assist other law enforcement agencies.

www.fbi.gov

Federal law gives the FBI authority to investigate all federal crime not assigned exclusively to another federal agency (28, Section 533 of the U.S. Code). Title 28, U.S. Code, Section 533, authorizes the attorney general to appoint officials to detect and prosecute crimes against the United States. Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 3052, specifically authorizes special agents and officials of the FBI to make arrests, carry firearms, and serve warrants. Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 3107, empowers special agents and officials to make seizures under warrant for violation of federal statutes. The FBI’s authority to investigate specific criminal violations is conferred by numerous other congressional statutes—such as the Congressional Assassination, Kidnapping, and Assault Act (Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 351). The FBI has special investigative jurisdiction to investigate violations of state law in limited circumstances, specifically felony killings of state law enforcement officers (28 U.S.C. § 540), violent crimes against interstate travelers (28 U.S.C. § 540A0), and serial killers (28 U.S.C. §540B). A request by an appropriate state official is required before the FBI has authority to investigate these matters. In addition, Title 28, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 0.85, outlines the investigative and other responsibilities of the FBI, including the collection of fingerprint cards and identification records; the training of state and local law enforcement officials at the FBI National Academy; and the operation of the National Crime Information Center and the FBI Laboratory.

The FBI has authority to investigate threats to national security pursuant to presidential executive orders, attorney general authorities, and various statutory sources. Title II of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, Public Law 108-458, 118 Stat. 3638, outlines FBI intelligence authorities, as does Executive Order 12333; 50 U.S.C. 401 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

Therefore I would tend to say - NO

 

[Dekster]

Hey, how often do you get to use that song title in a post?

Never heard of the song.

 

[1srelluc]

No, but a state can refuse to use their LEO resources to help them in any way.

It can even go so far down as the local level when elected sheriffs and the town/city councils tell their SDs/PDs to refuse even if the state OKs help (state police).

The FBI, ATF, etc more often than not depend on local LEO "muscle" for raids and such.

 

[WinterBorn]

Never heard of the song.

It was an 80s tune by the B-52s.

 

[Weatherman2020]

As a continuance of the shut-down thread about the Idaho GOP legislature wanting to ban the FBI from operating in their state, I'll post this question:

Can an individual state "ban" a federal agency from operating in their state?

"BREAKING: Idaho GOP has voted to abolish the FBI and ban them from the state if it is deemed they cannot be reformed."



Now let's look at two examples where this has already occurred:

1. Oregon:

"Under Oregon’s sanctuary laws, county and law enforcement officials are prohibited from providing ICE with non-public information about criminal aliens necessary for federal law enforcement, including the release dates of those criminal aliens from local jails. In addition, Oregon law enforcement does not honor immigration detainers due to Oregon court rulings."

ICE serves 5 immigration subpoenas in Oregon for criminal alien information from local law enforcement

2. States which ignore the Drug Enforcement Agency and federal laws on the use, possession, and sale of marijuana, a Schedule I controlled substance:

MARIJUANA LEGALITY BY STATE

States tried that in 1861.

 

[SavannahMann]

As a continuance of the shut-down thread about the Idaho GOP legislature wanting to ban the FBI from operating in their state, I'll post this question:

Can an individual state "ban" a federal agency from operating in their state?

"BREAKING: Idaho GOP has voted to abolish the FBI and ban them from the state if it is deemed they cannot be reformed."



Now let's look at two examples where this has already occurred:

1. Oregon:

"Under Oregon’s sanctuary laws, county and law enforcement officials are prohibited from providing ICE with non-public information about criminal aliens necessary for federal law enforcement, including the release dates of those criminal aliens from local jails. In addition, Oregon law enforcement does not honor immigration detainers due to Oregon court rulings."

ICE serves 5 immigration subpoenas in Oregon for criminal alien information from local law enforcement

2. States which ignore the Drug Enforcement Agency and federal laws on the use, possession, and sale of marijuana, a Schedule I controlled substance:

MARIJUANA LEGALITY BY STATE

You guys have never understood what a Sanctuary City or State really is. If you had a clue perhaps you wouldn’t sound so dumb. At least on this subject.

Let’s first cover what Sanctuary policies really are. The local cops and such are prohibited from asking about an individual’s immigration status. Imagine it this way. Don’t ask don’t tell for immigrants. This way they’re still in the closet in a manner of speaking.

Second. Cops are not supposed to call ICE and tell them that they have a guy who is illegal in detention.

Third. The cops won’t honor an Immigration Remainder letter.

Let’s explain those. The letters are requests. Hey hold on to this guy, don’t let him go for a few days while we screw around on it. They are not legal warrants. They are like the National Security Letters in a way. They have no force of law requiring compliance.

A warrant on the other hand, the cops must comply with. So if ICE has a Warrant for John Smith, the locals have to hold onto him and notify the agency they have him. But a detainer letter? Nope. And that is honestly proper.

If ICE wants to find John Smith that is their business. The cops aren’t going to interfere. All they are going to say is good luck Scooter.

Now cooperation with the FBI. That is similar. The FBI is going to serve a Search Warrant. They want the locals in to assist with manpower. Mainly to form a perimeter and keep people out. Or perhaps some SWAT assistance. I’ll say this. I honestly don’t know what the requirements are. I don’t know what assistance the locals are required to provide a Federal Agency who is serving a Warrant. Required by law is what I mean. I know the Locals can’t interfere. But I don’t know what support they are required to provide.

The Locals can say Federal Crime, Federal problem. They don’t have to assign Officers in searching for a wanted man. But if they find the guy and learn there is an arrest warrant, they are required to arrest the fellow.

This is why they’ve never prosecuted anyone for Sanctuary policies. There is no legal requirement to abide by the Requests from ICE to hold a guy. Locals have no authority to enforce Immigration Law. That by the Supreme Court Decisions is the exclusive purview of the Federal Government.

What they are saying is something the Conservatives say often. Not my problem. Your problem. You deal with it.

Unless of course you all want to Federalize all police. Then you can argue that the local cops have a duty to enforce Federal Law.

 

[JGalt]

You guys have never understood what a Sanctuary City or State really is. If you had a clue perhaps you wouldn’t sound so dumb. At least on this subject.

Let’s first cover what Sanctuary policies really are. The local cops and such are prohibited from asking about an individual’s immigration status. Imagine it this way. Don’t ask don’t tell for immigrants. This way they’re still in the closet in a manner of speaking.

Second. Cops are not supposed to call ICE and tell them that they have a guy who is illegal in detention.

Third. The cops won’t honor an Immigration Remainder letter.

Let’s explain those. The letters are requests. Hey hold on to this guy, don’t let him go for a few days while we screw around on it. They are not legal warrants. They are like the National Security Letters in a way. They have no force of law requiring compliance.

A warrant on the other hand, the cops must comply with. So if ICE has a Warrant for John Smith, the locals have to hold onto him and notify the agency they have him. But a detainer letter? Nope. And that is honestly proper.

If ICE wants to find John Smith that is their business. The cops aren’t going to interfere. All they are going to say is good luck Scooter.

Now cooperation with the FBI. That is similar. The FBI is going to serve a Search Warrant. They want the locals in to assist with manpower. Mainly to form a perimeter and keep people out. Or perhaps some SWAT assistance. I’ll say this. I honestly don’t know what the requirements are. I don’t know what assistance the locals are required to provide a Federal Agency who is serving a Warrant. Required by law is what I mean. I know the Locals can’t interfere. But I don’t know what support they are required to provide.

The Locals can say Federal Crime, Federal problem. They don’t have to assign Officers in searching for a wanted man. But if they find the guy and learn there is an arrest warrant, they are required to arrest the fellow.

This is why they’ve never prosecuted anyone for Sanctuary policies. There is no legal requirement to abide by the Requests from ICE to hold a guy. Locals have no authority to enforce Immigration Law. That by the Supreme Court Decisions is the exclusive purview of the Federal Government.

What they are saying is something the Conservatives say often. Not my problem. Your problem. You deal with it.

Unless of course you all want to Federalize all police. Then you can argue that the local cops have a duty to enforce Federal Law.

That's fucking idiotic. Any cop ought to be able to ask a criminal illegal if they're an illegal. They broke the law when they set foot in this country. The cops should also be able to take them into custody and call the federal immigration authorities. They have no business here, they don't belong here, and they need to go through the channels if thy want to com here.

Fuck sanctuary cities, fuck illegals, and fuck the Biden administration.

 

[SavannahMann]

That's fucking idiotic. Any cop ought to be able to ask a criminal illegal if they're an illegal. They broke the law when they set foot in this country. The cops should also be able to take them into custody and call the federal immigration authorities. They have no business here, they don't belong here, and they need to go through the channels if thy want to com here.

Fuck sanctuary cities, fuck illegals, and fuck the Biden administration.

So your argument is that we should Federalize all police. Not something I’ll be supporting.

Want the local cops enforcing tax laws? No? Why not? We allow police to enforce laws that we hire them for. Local authorities hire and empower police to enforce the local, and State laws within the city, County, or State, as may be. If you want them to enforce Federal Law, they have to be Federal Agents.

 

[JGalt]

So your argument is that we should Federalize all police. Not something I’ll be supporting.

Want the local cops enforcing tax laws? No? Why not? We allow police to enforce laws that we hire them for. Local authorities hire and empower police to enforce the local, and State laws within the city, County, or State, as may be. If you want them to enforce Federal Law, they have to be Federal Agents.

Your logic is flawed. You want to leave enforcing immigration laws entirely up to the federal government, and yet you have no problem with states, cities, and localities creating their own immigration policies by setting up "sanctuary" zones? Give me a fuckin' break. If immigration is a federal responsibility, then technically there should be no "sanctuary cities" period. End of story.

 

[DudleySmith]

I have always maintained the next civil war will start on Idaho.

Where nobody will notice the 5 fat white guys and their camo painted riding lawn mowers as they move on the capital, waving their AR's around one handed and a beer in their other hand.

 

[SavannahMann]

Your logic is flawed. You want to leave enforcing immigration laws entirely up to the federal government, and yet you have no problem with states, cities, and localities creating their own immigration policies by setting up "sanctuary" zones? Give me a fuckin' break. If immigration is a federal responsibility, then technically there should be no "sanctuary cities" period. End of story.

The Federal Government is free to enforce Immigration in those cities. The cities say they won’t help or honor the detainer requests. That’s all.

ICE can and do pick people up. They can and do operate. But they operate alone. The cops don’t help. That’s all a Sanctuary City does.

There is no legal requirement for the local cops to assist or cooperate. They can’t interfere. That would be obstruction and a crime and if they do that by all means arrest them and prosecute them. But all they are doing is minding their own business.