The controversial Joe Arpaio is back in the news, even up here.

One of our local radio talk shows has Joe as a guest on a regular
basis. Today they were talking about his latest pissing contest with
ICE.

My question has nothing to do with that. I am curious as to who has
jurisdiction for policing a defined area. Joe is the Sheriff for
Maricopa County, which is a large area that includes Phoenix among
other cities. Phoenix has their own police force. Joe seemed to have
little respect for the Phoenix police and tended to brag about sending
his deputies into Phoenix on various raids.

So which organization has jurisdiction inside the city limits of
Phoenix? When you call 911 for a cop, who responds?

I am puzzled by the apparent overlapping of jurisdictions.

Up here we have a variety of police forces, none of them elected.
While the RCMP may perform investigative duties within municipal
boundaries patrolled by a municipal police force, they would not
patrol those same streets or randomly stop people in cars or on the
streets. Areas not covered by a municipal force would be policed by
the RCMP.

From what I read and hear it seems a Sheriff can patrol inside a
municipal district.

what >i< want to know, though, is whether there are any lady sheriffs,
and if they do calendars the way firemen do calendars ...

Don't try to generalize about US law enforcement. Every state has its own
laws and they vary more than most people, even those who live in the US,
realize. In some states the authority of the county sheriff is very
limited, in others it is quite broad.

I share your confusion, and I look forward to informative answers.

A similar anomaly is this one:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/19/medical.marijuana/index.html

It isn't a coherent system when a state can legalize medical marijuana
use, but the feds can still arrest the patients who are doing what is
legal in the state.

"Datesfat Chicks" <datesfat.chicks at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:LpKdnYD3kaIa3kDXnZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d at (no spam) giganews.com...
snip
I share your confusion, and I look forward to informative answers.

A similar anomaly is this one:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/19/medical.marijuana/index.html

It isn't a coherent system when a state can legalize medical
marijuana use, but the feds can still arrest the patients who are
doing what is legal in the state.

The federal government has something called Sovereignty, where federal
crimes are separate and apart from state or local crimes. That's why
the cops that were accused of beating Rodney King could be aquitted
of all charges brought by the state, then found guilty under federal
laws. They were all separate crimes, at least on paper.

Strange, that nobody bitched about that, but they've been crying for
years over dope.

Anyway, the federal government has the authority to regulate drugs,
immigration, and whatever. The states can legalize what they want,
but if its illegal under federal law, nobody can stop the feds from
doing their thing. The most state and local governments can do to
hinder federal law enforcement is be a pain in the ass when dealing
with them, such as Los Angeles and NYC, who love animal criminals and
hate cops.

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States
now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by
the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight,
but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding
ten dollars for each Person.

Presumably since we are past 1808, Congress can prohibit "The
Migration or Importation of such Persons..."

Better yet: Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To establish
an uniform Rule of Naturalization....

And ... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for
carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers
vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States,
or in any Department or Officer thereof.