Pancho Villa and Law Enforcement
This is a famous example. Max Boot, The Savage Wars of Peace (2002), devotes a chapter to it (pp. 182-204). Villa's raid on Columbus, NM, on 9 Mar 1916, was reported to Pres. Wilson that morning. He immediately tasked the US Army to set off "in pursuit of Villa with the single object of capturing him and putting a stop to his forays." As we shall see, the Army modified the mission just a bit.from CFR article
What are some historical examples of 'hot pursuit'?
History is replete with examples of foreign agents or armies crossing another state’s sovereign borders in pursuit of those suspected of committing crimes against another state. One famous example is the pursuit of Pancho Villa by U.S. forces into Mexico in 1916. The manhunt was in response to a cross-border raid of New Mexico by Pancho’s “Villistas,” though the pursuit failed and Villa escaped.
Lead elements of US forces crossed the border on 15 Mar (the main striking force of the 7th, 10th, 11th and 13th CAV would soon follow). The joint congressional resolution, approving the expedition, was duly enacted on 17 Mar (Boot, p.371 n.190). So, domestic US law was satisfied. What about I Law ?
Boot explains that as follows (p.190):
So, the Villa expedition was supported, in I Law, by both a treaty and an executive agreement."To give an air of legality to this invasion of another country, President Wilson invoked an old U.S.-Mexico treaty that gave each side the right of "hot pursuit" into each other's territory on the trail of bandits. First Chief [President of Mexico] Carranza agreed to allow American troops to enter Mexican territory as long as the U.S. would agree to let Mexican troops enter U.S. territory in a similar situation in the future."
Boot's tone seems (IMO) to suggest this was a "make weight" legal argument; e.g., dust off an old and unused treaty to justify an "invasion of another country" (his words, not mine). But, not so ...
The treaty had been used before by both sides because of the difficult border situation, where many "hostiles" (my words) attacked both countries from border sanctuaries. An example, from 30 years before, was Gen. Crooks 1885 expedition into Mexico.
http://www.vfw2951sf.org/index.php?o...d=55&Itemid=64In 1882, Crook was recalled to Territory of Arizona to conduct a campaign against the remaining Apaches. Geronimo surrendered in January 1884. Then, deprived of traditional tribal rights, short on rations and homesick Geronimo took flight from the San Carlos reservation in May 1885 and fled to Mexico to resume the life that he loved.
Crook ordered more than five-thousand U.S. troopers and more than 100 scouts, including Al Sieber, Tom Horn and Mickey Free (the white child Cochise was falsely accused of abducting), to take the field in southwestern New Mexico and southeastern Arizona with orders to protect settlers and hunt down the hostiles. As authorized by an earlier treaty with Mexico, Crook dispatched two columns across the border into Mexico and the Sierra Madre with the same orders.
So, the Villa expedition was not unique - and very legal, based on prior precedents.
What is very legal is not necessarily practical or guaranteed of good results. Thus, Boot notes (p.202):
A little blowback in that aspect of the expedition."When Pershing entered Mexico, Villa had no more than 400 demoralized men. When he left, Villa had some 5,000 confident fighters and was more powerful than at any time since early 1915. Moreover, his resurgence may be attributed, at least in part, to his skill at playing on nationalistic resentment of the armed gringos in their midst."
Another aspect of the Villa expedition, relevant to the present, was the Army's "modification" of its tasked mission (Boot at 189-190), which I will paraphrase. Newton Baker (SecWar) conveyed Wilson's order ("capture him") to Hugh Scott (Army CoS), who questioned making war on one man - what if Villa took a train to "Guatamala, Yucatan, or South America". Was the Army supposed to chase him there ? No, that was not what Baker wanted. So, Scott "suggested", what you really want us to do is to capture or destroy "his band". Yup, that's it, said Baker. Thus, military common sense won that day; and its modified task was to end when "Villa's band or bands are known to be broken up."
-------------------------------------------
Bonnie & Clyde
When automobiles became crime tools, law enforcement was faced with pursuit problems caused by ancient jurisdictional boundary lines, in two areas: intrastate and interstate.
The intrastate problem had two aspects. The first was the limit for municipal departments (down to the village constable). The second was the limit for county departments (county lines). The solution was adoption of state statutes, expanding the territorial limits in hot pursuit situations - e.g., county mounties could cross county lines in pursuit. The exact solution varied from state to state (I imagine that Michigan and Alabama have slightly different statutes). In any event, the various agencies within a state have SOPs spelling out what their officers should do in hot pursuit situations.
The interstate problem is more akin to I Law, since our states are sovereign (more or less). The problem of crossing state lines was solved by uniform state acts (e.g., Uniform Act on Fresh Pursuit) and/or by interstate compacts ("treaties" between states). Those solutions were well in place by the 1930's.
See, as examples (you can Google up a ton of stuff):
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1116451(snip, but has relevant provisions)
Interstate Rendition. Uniform Act on Fresh Pursuit
Columbia Law Review, Vol. 38, No. 4 (Apr., 1938), pp. 705-709 (article consists of 5 pages)
Published by: Columbia Law Review Association, Inc.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1189662(snip, but has relevant provisions)
The Interstate Compact. A Device for Crime Repression
Gordon Dean
Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol. 1, No. 4, Extending Federal Powers over Crime (Oct., 1934), pp. 460-471 (article consists of 12 pages)
Published by: Duke University School of Law
International law (except as to high seas piracy, which has always been a "universal jurisdiction") is more in the pre-Bonnie & Clyde state. Cases such as McLeod-Caroline establish that there is no well-recognized general right of hot pursuit on land. However, the right of hot pursuit can be established by treaty (a public document) as in the Villa and Apache examples. It can also be established by executive agreements (which can be public or secret) between heads of state.
The question of hot pursuit by Afghan-NATO-US forces into Pakistan has been the subject of a number of Pakistani news reports over the last 8 months - many more recently. Some evidence suggests that there is an executive agreement covering that issue; but that there is some dispute as to its exact parameters. See attached .doc file (too many URLs and leads to set out in this post); the main texts (not included in the attached file for obvious reasons) have the "rest of the story".
Bookmarks