In the United States, can a federal marshal arrest a sheriff or a state police officer or a Texas Ranger – or a US Navy Seal engaged in combat? These scenarios have long fascinated me. I realize the US Navy Seal in combat is a stretch, so imagine a US Navy Seal engaged in a mission domestically, perhaps on the Mexico border, doing something illegal. Can a US marshal arrest the Seal?
Yes. All of them can arrest the SEAL if he/she commits a crime in their jurisdiction. The SEAL can’t arrest any of the others, but all the rest of them can arrest each other provided they are within their jurisdiction.
My understanding is that a navy Seal would not be deployed on a domestic mission. The US Armed Forces do not perform actual missions on US soil. Military police would get involved with any arrest of a serviceman.
The Department of Defense is engaged in Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities and other Homeland Security, Department of Energy, border protection and counter terrorism related operations on U.S Soil. They don’t have organic arrest authority, but they are often assisting domestic law enforcement in some capacity. If they commit a crime while doing so, they can be arrested.
This is generally true due to the Posse Comitatus Act; this used to just cover the US Army (and later, after its establishment, the US Air Force) leading to a bunch of baseless conspiracy theories about the Department of the Navy, but has since become expanded to all branches of the Department of Defense (Navy, Marines, Space Force). Posse Comitatus can be suspended by executive order, and does not apply to National Guard and state militia units operating under the authority of the cognizant state governor; hence, the National Guard can arrest rioters and looters when deployed.
When they do so, it is in association with a law enforcement agency; for instance, when the US Navy is performing drug interdictions, they have a Coast Guard Support to Interdiction and Prosecution (CG-SIP) Team on board and participating in boarding operations. When the US Army performs domestic pursuit of military fugitives or AWOL soldiers, it does so with US Marshals or FBI liaison, et cetera. Domestic counterterrorism is generally handled by some combination of the FBI and DHS, albeit sometimes with assistance by DoD for areas of specialty.
As noted, military members operating or off-duty off-post are subject to domestic law enforcement, and can be arrested for crimes committed, as can federal law enforcement agents exceeding their lawful authority in a state, county, or municipal jurisdiction. The issues of who has jurisdiction when there are crimes at multiple enforcement levels, or when an agent has been removed from jurisdiction before being taken into custody can become thorny legal issues resolved by courts, where the federal courts almost always dominate.
Stranger
The Posse Comitatus Act does generally forbid military intervention and participation in domestic policy/work*, but I personally, alongside with my Flight, have performed actual military missions on US soil under authority of the Defense Support of Civil Authorities Act . . . and that was just for conventional munitions. Things get ‘real DOD-ey’ real fast when WMDs are suspected to be involved.
Even now, after my active military service, on one of my WMD response teams, we have heavy representation by, and ties with, the FBI.
- ETA, this doesn’t apply to the Coast Guard, which is not a ‘Title 10’ , but a ‘Title 14’ Law Enforcement service. (We can split legal hairs on this in another thread, though)
Tripler
The FBI gets to be ‘the doorkicker’ in domestic search, seizeures, and arrests.
Here’s a video of county cops and town cops all threatening to arrest each other over a dispute about jurisdiction (or something). Note that the military wasn’t involved; I just offer this as a data point (and I love pointing out cops looking stupid).
[Moderating]
A video of different law enforcement agencies attempting to arrest each other is certainly germane to this topic. The personal opinions, however, are unnecessary in FQ. Let’s leave that for other forums, please.
IANAL but it seems to me that nobody is above the law (except diplomatic immunity) and a law officer can arrest (or try to) anyone where there is probably cause. Indeed, SCOTUS is due to consider a case that determines this issue at the highest rank.
I mean, if a county sheriff arrests an FBI agent, i assume that the FBI cannot just show up and yank him out of jail using drawn weapons and bolt-cutters - but they do have expensive government lawyers who know how to file the exact paperwork to expedite things, and VIP’s who can contact the sheriff’s bosses and make loud noises. (And the sheriff better have all the right justifications for what he did).
As for whose jurisdiction takes precedence, I assume that’s already a matter of established law and case law.
I’d assume there’s some sort of hierarchy dependent on jurisdiction and crime that would determine which of those has to do the arresting/investigation.
For example, if that SEAL violated federal law, it would likely be the FBI who’d have jurisdiction to arrest and investigate him. If it was just state law, then I’d imagine the DPS trooper (what Texas state police are called) would do the arresting, but the Ranger could as well, being a different part of the DPS.
Where I’m not clear is about the branch-related military law enforcement and where they fit in - NCIS, Army CID, and Air Force OSI are the ones I know about. Where do they fit in a situation like this?
I know that at Fort Hood in 2009, it was Army CID that led the primary investigation, and there were apparently a slew of Rangers, FBI agents, Sheriff’s deputies, and DPS troopers involved as well. I’m not sure if they were there as extra manpower, or what.
It’s possible for an event to fall under the jurisdiction of multiple different law enforcement agencies. There are so many different agencies and jurisdictions in this country that there can’t be any single one-size-fits-all answer to whose jurisdiction is primary, but for agencies whose jurisdiction often overlaps, they’ve probably already worked it out between them beforehand.
And of course, a sergeant in motion outranks a lieutenant who doesn’t know what’s going on, and so there will sometimes be cases where someone who wouldn’t ordinarily be in charge being de facto in charge, just because they were the first ones to act on it. See, for instance, the Uvalde school shooting, where the first law enforcement to actually act were Border Patrol agents, even though the situation had nothing to do with immigration or the border.
Under 28 USC § 1442, if a state tries to prosecute a federal officer for their official actions, the case can be removed to the federal courts (and presumably dismissed there if the DoJ approves of their actions). This came up recently in Trump’s Georgia case.
Back in the Cretaceous, I worked summers for the then still Post Office. We had a mandatory training program on the right-hand drive jeeps and trucks that the USPO used. The instructor told us - in words very close to these - that because the trucks were federal vehicles they had right of way above anything else on the road including emergency vehicles. And that if we ever pulled anything that stupid he would take us out back and shoot us.
This actually did come up in the case of the Ruby Ridge incident, where state authorities charged an FBI sniper with manslaughter:
Interesting detail on news today - a group of very senior retired military officers filed a brief against the idea of presidential immunity - citing that even should the president have full immunity, nothing grants that to the military, who would be forced to decide whether to follow orders, or if such orders demanded they violate the law - since anyone below the president would have no immunity angainst any prosecution by any jurisdiction.
The logic is clear - a person doing their legal consitutional duty - enjoys qualified immunity. You can’t sue the police investigating or the judge for presiding over the trial (in a legal manner) and sentencing you. You can, if they violate your rights.
I’m not sure why the OP specifically asks about the U.S. Marshal Service. The Marshals have a very specific job. They are the law enforcement arm of the federal courts. They are not out digging up clues and investigating crimes. In addition to providing security at federal court and for judges they execute warrants for the federal court. Most famously they hunt down fugitives on the run. If they are arresting someone it’s because they have a warrant signed by a judge. Your job isn’t going to prevent you from being arrested on a warrant.
Which is an urban legend despite what your boss said.
We didn’t have Snopes back in those days.
And it’s also an urban legend that postal supervisors are allowed to take their employees out back and shoot them.
There’s a “going postal” joke in there somewhere that good tastes dictates refraining from repeating…