Free Research Paper About Potential Conflicts/Friction Between Federal And State/Local Law Enforcement

The United States has a fragmented system of law enforcement. Its federal system of government creates a dual system of government where the federal system co-exists with the state system. The co-existing systems are established under the 10th Amendment, which provides that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” As a result, law enforcement exists at the federal to enforce federal laws, while another law enforcement system exists at the state, which is also empowered to create political subdivisions with their respective law enforcement agencies. Thus, law enforcement actually exists at the federal, state and local levels (Russell et al pp. 78-79). To prevent confusion, law enforcement agencies follow a division of enforcement usually based on jurisdictions, where federal law enforcement simply enforces federal laws, state law enforcement enforces state laws and local law enforcement local laws. However, things are not as simple as it seems because sometimes conflict in law enforcement occur between federal and state law enforcement officers.
Potential conflicts in law enforcement can occur because sometimes states enact laws that seem to conflict with federal laws. The result is a conflict in law enforcement. One area of potential conflict is drug enforcement. In recent years, a movement towards the decriminalization of marijuana has emerged. States are beginning to acknowledge the therapeutic effects of marijuana and its limited recreational use. For example, the states of Washington and Colorado voters voted in 2012 to legalize, to regulate and tax the recreational use of marijuana. Other states subsequently followed. Under the federal law Controlled Substances Act, however, the manufacture, distribution, sale and possession of marijuana are prohibited (Sacco and Ficklea 2014, p. 2). If these states finally pass laws to that effect, a potential conflict between federal drug enforcers and state law enforcement loom in the horizon.
One recent case, which could significantly posed potential conflict in law enforcement, is an Arizona law that established state immigration offenses resulting in the expansion of state law enforcement role in immigration issues. The Supreme Court has time and again upheld the jurisdiction of the federal government over immigration issues (Find Law 2015). In 2010, Arizona passed a law that sought to solve its immigration issues. The law provided, among others, the authorization of state law enforcement officers to collaborate with federal officials in the enforcement of federal immigration laws as well as impose penalties prescribed by Arizona for violation of immigration laws. For example, a local law enforcement officer is authorized to stop persons he or she suspects of being illegal immigrants and confirm their legal status before releasing them (Arizona v United States 567 U.S. ___ [2012]) . Such a law if allowed would infringe on the jurisdiction of federal immigration law enforcers to implement the federal law on immigration. A federal court has ruled that the law has infringed upon the prerogatives of the federal government. At present, the case is on appeal with the US Supreme Court.
Although the jurisdictions of federal and state law enforcement have been clearly delineated by laws, still potential conflicts between the two law enforcement systems may arise. To impose federal laws, federal law enforcement officers must operate in areas within the boundaries of a state. If such officers fail to inform local law enforcement beforehand an operation, confusion and conflict may occur. In recent times, states have enacted policies that extends local law enforcement jurisdiction in matters that have been traditionally federal matters. These policies, which include drug enforcement and immigration issues, have the potential to clash federal law enforcement against state law enforcement.

References

Arizona v United States 567 U.S. ___ (2012).
FindLaw (2014). Federal vs. State Immigration Laws. Thomson Reuters. Retrieved from http://immigration.findlaw.com/immigration-laws-and-resources/federal-vs-state- immigration-laws.html
Russell, G., Paynich, R. and Gingerich, T. (2005). Law Enforcement in the United States. Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Sacco, L. and Ficklea, K. (2014). State Marijuana Legalization Initiatives: Implications for Federal Law Enforcement. CRS Report for Congress, Congressional Research Service. Retrieved from http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43164.pdf.