Last week I talked about the importance of having a good relationship between law enforcement and its community. This week I will talk about who should really be “in charge” when it comes to the different law enforcement agencies. There are three common categories of law enforcement agencies and they are the local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies. All of these different agencies each have jurisdictions that they have to stay in, so of course they are limited as to what they can do and where they can do it, but the problem isn’t time and location the problem is availability of new information.
The U.S. Federal law enforcement agencies seem to be the most important out of all of them. We emphasize these agencies the most because they often deal with the most serious type of crime which is a fair statement but it doesn’t mean that there isn’t a problem. What I mean by problem is that because federal law-enforcement agencies are emphasized the most, the rest of the agencies kind of get pushed to the side. This can lead to a lot of problems. For example if the FBI, which is a federal law enforcement agency, is investigating a possible terrorist attack that is going to be committed in Chicago but they do not communicate with the local or state law-enforcement there they could put themselves and everyone else around them in danger. This is because the local and state law enforcement are more likely to be in that specific area during the time of an attack and it is just as important for them to know what is going on as it is the federal law enforcement agencies. The complaint about the agencies not being in contact with one another is nothing new. There have been pushes for better communication but we still can’t seem to figure it out.
Yes, the federal law enforcement agencies may be important but local and state law enforcement agencies are just as important. In fact most of the law enforcement you see is local and state law enforcement. Local and state law enforcement agencies are responsible for regulating the law in each of their states. This would mean that they actually have a majority of the power. The government is responsible for the lack of communication between the agencies resulting in local and state agencies to be left in the dust.
As a result, the federal government has overstepped its boundaries. For example, in the 1995 case US v. Lopez, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government had overstepped its bounds by claiming the authority to ban guns from school grounds under the Commerce Clause. Because guns on school grounds aren’t related to interstate commerce, the Supreme Court ruled the gun ban unconstitutional.
Still today we are trying to figure out the balance of power between federal, state, and local law-enforcement but it is a lot easier said than done. Who do you think really has the power?
Hi Annalise,
I think you make really good points about the dangerous effects that the U.S Federal Law enforcement agencies could have if they carry too much power with them. It is a good question to pose on who really does have the power. In my opinion, I really do think that it depends on the current state we are in. In the hypothetical situation you used about a terrorist attack in Chicago, there are definitely dangers that could arise if the local and state-law enforcements do not have as much knowledge as the federal law enforcement agencies.
Hi Annalise,
I agree with how you said the federal law enforcement agencies are important, but how state and local agencies are just as important. It does bring the question of which has more power, and most would assume federal just because they are at a higher jurisdiction in a way, but in some cases state and local agencies have higher power depending on the problem that arises.