There are alot of crimes/cases when during the description of the crime they add “traveled across state lines”. Why is this a big no-no?
​
EDIT: Thanks for all the answers! It is interesting to see how the USA works. On one hand it’s like a single country but on other sometimes it looks like a collection of a bunch of semi-countries.
25 comments
It adds paperwork in the real world and drama on TV.
It turns some crimes into a federal offense. Federal offenses mean harsher prisons, harsher punishments, harsher everything.
It can also make it more difficult for a suspect to be caught. The police from NYC can’t arrest you in Miami without the cooperation of Miami PD and an extradition order. The NYC police can’t even really investigate you once you leave NY without working with local law enforcement.
I am not a lawyer, it i think the TLDR is that it is often a trigger for involving federal jurisdiction. The federal government doesn’t have a whole lot of enumerated duties on paper so there’s a whole complicated framework for what cases the federal government is allowed to get involved, and that includes doing something across state boundaries.
Of course, on the non-criminal side of things the Supreme Court decided a long time ago that anything and everything counts as interstate commerce so the feds can generally do what they please in terms of economic policy and regulations.
depends on the specific crime, but it can kick it into federal jurisdiction I think. Not a lawyer.
If you commit a crime in one state and continue doing it in another you effectively did it twice. It’s also often a felony to move victims or evidence across state lines. For example, if you kidnapped a person in Georgia and transported them to Alabama, you’ve both committed a crime in Georgia (kidnapping) and Alabama (kidnapping) and also a felony (transporting someone across state lines against their will). This is worse for the criminal’s legal case than kidnapping someone in Georgia and keeping them there.
It’s also a huge pain in the ass for the cops, because when you cross state lines you force the cops in both states to have to cooperate to nab you, and in some cases the FBI needs to get involved. So in our example, Georgia local and state police, Alabama local and state police, *and* the FBI need to get along. This does not endear them to you.
They likely mention it because it can get the federal law enforcement agencies involved.
You distribute weed in Maine with the proper permits and it’s totally legal (under state law, but the federal agencies ignore it if it legal in your state). You start distributing from Maine to other states and the feds may very well get involved because you are transporting across state lines.
Because then it’s not just a local issue, it’s a federal one
Because there are times that indicates a wider range for the criminal activity and it also allows the Federal investigators to step in, if it crosses from state to state.
For instance: drug or human trafficking.
Whenever you cross state lines you invoke the full power of the federal government because of the [Commerce clause of the US Constitution.](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commerce_clause)
If you commit a crime and cross state lines, you have the feds coming after you now not just the local/county or state police
It’s not a matter of a no-no. It’s a matter of going through multiple states makes it a Federal matter. You don’t want the Feds after you for anything.
It’s not.
Turns a state level offense into a federal one by involving two states.
Sometimes the sheriff gets a bug up his ass n you gotta fit out the holler
I’m just guessing, but I think it’s partly related to the fact that different states have different laws, for example the age that someone can consent to sex. So I think it’s a big deal in some cases where people will go to another state to try to avoid laws that exist in their own state, and the feds want to stop people from doing that.
The Federal government doesn’t always get involved, especially if the crime was committed in only one state and the perpetrator has fled the state but is not continuing the crime in the other state.
What people, especially in other countries, might not realize about the U.S. is that if you commit a crime and leave the state and are caught in another state, that doesn’t mean you automatically get sent back. You can object to being returned and then the original state has to file legal paperwork to have you extradited back to their state. There is a hearing with a judge that decides whether you should be sent back. Usually it happens but it is not guaranteed. That’s a concrete demonstration that states have individual powers and in some ways their relationships are like those between independent countries.
It can give clearer jurisdiction to federal prosecution.
For example- if someone grows pot in a state where it is legal and the pot stays in that state, the federal government would have a harder time showing how it’s a federal case. But because the Feds have clear jurisdiction over interstate commerce if the pot travels from one state to another it gives the feds jurisdiction.
The United States has a concept of [dual sovereignty](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8utFbFJR8s). Most crimes in the United States are actually legislated and prosecuted under the sovereignty of the state in which the crime occurred, not the federal government. So if you shoot your neighbor, for example, you’re not going to jail because murder is illegal in the United States, you’re going to jail because murder is illegal in Wisconsin/Arizona/Florida/etc. When a crime takes place in multiple states (the whole “crossing state lines” business) however, neither state has sovereign power over the entirety of the case, and that is the point at which the federal government steps in, at least for the crimes for which it is relevant. The reason this shows up in TV shows as a “big no-no” is because the feds have a very “don’t fuck around” attitude, and can generally bring a lot of resources and power to bear on the comparatively fewer crimes they investigate. Crossing state lines is a bit of a “waking the dragon” situation, where you’re now dealing with the FBI or the US Attorney, and the US Code and federal courts.
It gets the feds involved. Same if you use the mail in a crime.
Essentially most law enforcement agencies are limited by juristiction (city limits, or state lines). This is because our constitution was literally written to make law enforcement more difficult (*our founders weren’t big on being ruled by a government*).
The FBI was established to get around this limitation in the 1930s. But from our founding until 1930, you were basically out free if you made it across the border to another state because the Police couldn’t chase you. The mafia and the bank robbers of the “Crime Wave” in the 30s, used this to their advantage, which was Hoover’s argument for establishing it.
Though even then, there were constitutional concerns to creating an FBI. And it has been heavily criticized ever since.
Because that makes it a federal crime as opposed to a crime handled by more local police, and now the federal government has jurisdiction. So instead of the local police, the FBI, the US Marshals, or other federal agencies run the case.
See the way the US Federal system is set up is that each state can write their own laws, and the federal government only has authority over laws that involve crimes that span the territory of multiple states, as well as crimes involving foreign nationals and crimes against federal officials. Consequently crossing state lines automatically gets the feds involved in a criminal case.
A lot of people have already answered this well but I wanna point out that when people would bring this up in the Kyle Rittenhouse case it was completely irrelevant. There’s no federal law against crossing state lines with a firearm that’s legal in both states. Also the rifle in the case didn’t cross state lines anyway
It opens you up to federal criminal law and also turns some misdemeanors into felonies. Got weed in your car? Simple possession. Cross a state line with weed in your car? Trafficking.
Many have already mentioned that there can be added federal charges. Another reason is that people try to bypass the law by doing something that is illegal in their state in a state in which it’s legal. For instance some people have tried to bypass age of consent laws by going to a state where the age of consent is 16, as the age of consent is 18 in some states.
Because you’re crossing jurisdictions. From one to another. That makes it a federal incident. State to federal is a big jump in severity.