The title of this post is misleading: should be something like "Investigation of a potential crime committed by a Federal Officer is done by federal agencies first. Other (state, local, etc.) agencies may investigate later."
The implication of the original title is that no investigation whatsoever is possible if a federal officer commits a potential crime. That is clearly false.
The law simply provides a time priority for investigations, something much=needed especially when the various agencies involved have competing (and, in this case, political) goals in their investigations.
> The implication of the original title is that no investigation whatsoever is possible if a federal officer commits a potential crime. That is clearly false.
No, the implication is that local and state level officers like Chief Mike Witz think investigating will be useless (e.g. they won't be able to gather enough evidence for a charge) or aren't aware that they have the legal room to investigate federal officers to the same extent that they can investigate regular civilians (e.g. misunderstanding of the Supremacy Clause).
> The title of this post is misleading: should be something like "Investigation of a potential crime committed by a Federal Officer is done by federal agencies first. Other (state, local, etc.) agencies may investigate later."
[...]
> The law simply provides a time priority for investigations
The post title is the same as the article title. The body of the article does not say anything similar to your suggested alternate title! (which suggests to me that your comment is in bad faith.) Can you provide evidence that your suggested article title describes a normal or expected practice (whether de jure or de facto)?
This article is not about state/local investigations that get postponed or delayed. This article is about state/local investigations that never happen, for the wrong reasons. This article is not about which laws, if any, actually mandate postponement of or prohibit state/local investigations of federal officers. The article describes how reasons other than the laws themselves make local/state investigations of federal officers rare, such as interference from the federal government and inaccurate beliefs that the laws themselves prohibit such investigations. I'm not aware of a law that "simply" stops state and local governments from unilaterally performing an investigation of a federal officer at the same time as the federal government does (or pretends to do so). Are you saying that some law overrides the judicial warrant described in the following excerpt?
> Even after getting a judicial warrant, investigators from the state’s Bureau of Criminal Apprehension were turned away by federal agents from the Minneapolis intersection where Pretti, 37, was shot and killed. Federal officials also excluded the BCA from the investigation into the death of Renee Good, who was shot and killed in her car two weeks before Pretti.
The title of this post is misleading: should be something like "Investigation of a potential crime committed by a Federal Officer is done by federal agencies first. Other (state, local, etc.) agencies may investigate later."
The implication of the original title is that no investigation whatsoever is possible if a federal officer commits a potential crime. That is clearly false.
The law simply provides a time priority for investigations, something much=needed especially when the various agencies involved have competing (and, in this case, political) goals in their investigations.
> The implication of the original title is that no investigation whatsoever is possible if a federal officer commits a potential crime. That is clearly false.
No, the implication is that local and state level officers like Chief Mike Witz think investigating will be useless (e.g. they won't be able to gather enough evidence for a charge) or aren't aware that they have the legal room to investigate federal officers to the same extent that they can investigate regular civilians (e.g. misunderstanding of the Supremacy Clause).
> The title of this post is misleading: should be something like "Investigation of a potential crime committed by a Federal Officer is done by federal agencies first. Other (state, local, etc.) agencies may investigate later."
[...]
> The law simply provides a time priority for investigations
The post title is the same as the article title. The body of the article does not say anything similar to your suggested alternate title! (which suggests to me that your comment is in bad faith.) Can you provide evidence that your suggested article title describes a normal or expected practice (whether de jure or de facto)?
This article is not about state/local investigations that get postponed or delayed. This article is about state/local investigations that never happen, for the wrong reasons. This article is not about which laws, if any, actually mandate postponement of or prohibit state/local investigations of federal officers. The article describes how reasons other than the laws themselves make local/state investigations of federal officers rare, such as interference from the federal government and inaccurate beliefs that the laws themselves prohibit such investigations. I'm not aware of a law that "simply" stops state and local governments from unilaterally performing an investigation of a federal officer at the same time as the federal government does (or pretends to do so). Are you saying that some law overrides the judicial warrant described in the following excerpt?
> Even after getting a judicial warrant, investigators from the state’s Bureau of Criminal Apprehension were turned away by federal agents from the Minneapolis intersection where Pretti, 37, was shot and killed. Federal officials also excluded the BCA from the investigation into the death of Renee Good, who was shot and killed in her car two weeks before Pretti.
Chief Mike Witz shook his head. “No, because it’s a federal shooting,” he said. “You’re not going to investigate a federal officer.”