Can a president be arrested?

[BainsBane]

Or is impeachment the only sanction he can face?

[MineralMan]

1. No, he really can't.

It simply can't be done, actually.

[BainsBane]

2. Why not?

Is there something in the constitution that prohibits it?

I know it's never been done, but does that mean it's not possible?

[MineralMan]

4. Nothing directly in the Constitution.

I can't think of anyone who might have the authority to arrest him, though. At least not in this country.

Can you?

[BainsBane]

8. the FBI?

[MineralMan]

12. Comey works for the President.

He answers to the Attorney General, who also works for the President.

I don't know but, I don't see the authority there to arrest the President, really.

[DK504]

60. They work for the country and enforce the laws and Constitution

of America. They aren't supposed to roll over and become the prez. poodles. They may work at the pleasure of the President, but they are bound by the law and their oaths.

[L. Coyote]

118. YES. No one takes an oath to a person, the oaths of office are to uphold the law and Constitution.

The Senate Sergeant at Arms has the power:

“The Sergeant at Arms is authorized to arrest and detain any person violating Senate rules, including the President of the United States."

http://www.senate.gov/reference/office/sergeant_at_arms.htm

So, if the Senate wants to arrest him, they can.

[elleng]

20. MAYBE a local sheriff, for a local 'bad act' like murder.

[MineralMan]

24. Nope. The Secret Service would keep him away from the President.

That's their job, and they're pretty damned good at it.

[elleng]

35. Yes, they are, pretty good at building fences!

[Maru Kitteh]

40. I disagree.

Their job is to maintain the safety of the President, not to interfere with law. His safety could be maintained while under arrest. Special arrangements could be made for processing of the arrest in a secure location.

The secret service must still operate within lawful protocols, just as other LEOs.

[MineralMan]

43. See, the thing is that people are innocent until proven guilty.

The Secret Service's job is to protect the President. Period. That's it. They're neither judges or juries. They are there to protect the President from harm. Nothing more. They aren't even law enforcement officials.

[Maru Kitteh]

53. Physical protection could easily be maintained in an arrest.

That is the only job of the Secret Service.

ETA: All persons are presumed innocent has nothing to do with it. This is true in the arrest of any citizen. The president is a citizen.

[Maru Kitteh]

61. Secret Service are law enforcement officers.

The United States Secret Service is a federal law enforcement agency with headquarters in Washington, D.C., and more than 150 offices throughout the United States and abroad. The Secret Service was established in 1865, solely to suppress the counterfeiting of U.S. currency. Today, the agency is mandated by Congress to carry out dual missions: protection of national and visiting foreign leaders, and criminal investigations.

Here's there LinkeIn! https://www.linkedin.com/company/u-s--secret-service

and their .gov. https://www.secretservice.gov/about/history/

[Hassin Bin Sober]

88. It's funny the stuff that gets blathered around here as fact.

You are, of course, correct. Secret Service are in fact federal law enforcement agents.

[hamsterjill]

55. I agree with you.

It's the very core of our Democracy. NO ONE is above the law.

[Maru Kitteh]

65. The president is a CITIZEN. This isn't a tin-pot republic or North Korea. I can't

believe this is even a question. NO citizen is above the law, and the president is a citizen.

[fescuerescue]

83. Read up on the scuffle between the Secret Service and Dallas Police in 1963

JFK was dead, and had been dead for a few hours.

JFK's bodies was removed at literal gunpoint from the hospital. That is a secret service agent pointed at gun at chest level and explained that Texas law be damned, they are taking their President back home.

Anyway Texas law required that anyone murdered be given a local autopsy and required the body stay in custody until certain adjudications were performed. The Secret Service would have nothing of it, and the body was removed at gunpoint. Now this was a dead president mind you...not a living one.


There is no way, the secret service would ever allow a living President to be arrested. Just not going to happen.

[treestar]

90. What if he was a danger to others

And they agreed for the good that he had to be locked up?

[fescuerescue]

97. They would do it themselves.

Bear in mind that almost most Federal buildings, from the Whitehouse to the Pentagon, military bases and capital ships have plenty of confinement facilities (i.e. jails) and usually their own onsite police force. I've seen inside a few at the Federal Reserve, FDIC and a few others, and they are as serious as any big city police station.

Bear in mind that the SS has the duty to keep the President safe. Under what possible scenario could a President be kept safe in a county lockup or prison? Imagine the difficulty of clearing everyone around him, from the guards to food supply, not to mention fellow prisoners.

If a President were to snap and say go on a shooting spree in the whitehouse, he or she would be quickly incapacitated, restrained and place in confinement within the Whitehouse. Probably the very same cells used to temporarily hold Whitehouse trespassers which happens every few months.

Now that I think about it, I suspect that SS already has a written contingency for such an event.

[smirkymonkey]

119. What if he decided to just go out on a shooting rampage?

They couldn't even arrest him then?

[PJMcK]

28. Your second sentence is intriguing

Since the George W. Bush Administration committed numerous violations of international laws, it has been opined that senior executives such as Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Mr. Bush himself cannot travel outside of the US for fear of being arrested and tried in an international court.

Could a foreign nation kidnap the president and transport them to their country for trial? Although it's hardly a good analogy, Adolph Eichmann was captured by the Israelis and brought to justice. It's a fascinating plot for a thriller.

[MineralMan]

37. That's silliness.

The Secret Service would prevent anyone from kidnapping the President, either in this country or any other.

As for those people travelling outside of the country, I have no idea if they could do that or not.

But to suggest that the President could be kidnapped and transported to another country defies all logic, really.

[treestar]

89. I don't see why a state police officer could not

He is not above the law. If he committed a state crime while in a state , what says he could not be arrested and charged ? Federal law would be problematic but that is what impeachment is for.

[Dustlawyer]

106. I was told by a Constable that they are the only ones who can arrest the President.

Don't know how true it is and it has been too long for me to remember his reasons. I guess at the time I felt there would never be a need or TPTB would not allow it. Trump once again goes where no sane President has ever gone before!

[neoredpill]

126. Senate Sergeant at Arms

The Senate Sergeant at Arms has the authority, but I would expect that is only when he is in the Senate chamber. Others technically can, but as a practical matter, they would most likely be blocked by Secret Service.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. The process is impeachment, removal, and indictment.

POTUS is part of the executive branch, Justice is part of the executive branch...Justice can not order the arrest of the head of the executive branch.

[Jonny Appleseed]

3. what if he kills someone? and everyone sees?

I'm curious about what the secret service does in that situation too.

[MineralMan]

6. I can't imagine that is a likely situation, really.

However, the Secret Service would certainly stop anyone who tried to physically arrest the President. Of that, I'm certain.

[tgards79]

27. I think you have no idea what you are talking about

At all

[PJMcK]

33. Please explain what you mean

Thanks.

[Maru Kitteh]

44. It was impolite, to be sure, but allow me to interject

The job of the Secret Service is to maintain the safety of the President, not to interfere with law. His safety could be maintained while under arrest. Special arrangements could be made for processing of the arrest in a secure location.

The secret service must still operate within lawful protocols, just as other LEOs. They are not the equivalent of Saddam's Republican Guard.

[MineralMan]

39. It's good to know what you think, for sure.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. They likely would physically stop him and wait for him to be impeached and removed.

[dalton99a]

13. I'm sure they'll do their jobs to protect themselves and others.

[elleng]

22. Ditto curious.

[pnwmom]

87. He would have to to impeached in the House and convicted in the Senate.

And then he could face criminal charges in the ordinary justice system.

[treestar]

91. Or takes hostages ?

Funny how Donald gets us thinking up these scenarios

[fescuerescue]

98. The SS would do it themselves

Just about any building or transport a President spends anytime in, has it's own jail.

The only exception I can thing of is Air force 1, but every airport in country capable of landing a 747 has its own jail

[bmbmd]

109. More likely

What if he grabs a woman by the p***y?

[MFM008]

7. id like to citizens arrest him

now.....

[Kaleva]

10. Yes. But only by the Sargent of Arms of the Senate who is Frank J. Larkin

[BainsBane]

11. Following conviction in the Senate, you mean?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

15. Impeachment trials aren't criminal proceedings. nt

[BainsBane]

18. I know

I was trying to figure out what the other poster was getting at.

[Recursion]

116. And specifically they do not attach jeopardy, per the Constitution (nt)

[Kaleva]

17. No.

The sargent at arms is empowered to arrest anyone, even the president, who violates Senate rules. Now I don't know what Trump would have to do to be in violation of Senate rules.

"The sergeant at arms also protects the members and can arrest and detain any person violating Senate rules."

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/sergeant_at_arms.htm

[BainsBane]

19. That doesn't mean someone else couldn't arrest a president for breaking

federal or state law.

[Kaleva]

25. As I understand it, the president has sovereign immunity.

[tgards79]

30. Huh????

Are you making this stuff up?

[BainsBane]

34. Soverign immunity

Sovereign immunity, or crown immunity, is a legal doctrine by which the sovereign or state cannot commit a legal wrong and is immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution. It is a principle of international law which exempts a sovereign state from the jurisdiction of foreign national courts.

In the Paula Jones case, the court held that a president could be subject to civil suit.

[Kaleva]

46. It's been decades since I took a Civics class so I could be wrong on that.

Did some google searching:

"The exegesis of this clause is that this means a sitting president cannot first be prosecuted for a crime, but must first be removed from office. The counter-argument is that "nevertheless" indicates that this clause only states that a president can be removed and then prosecuted, and that removal does not preclude further action. In other words, the law has yet to be determined on this matter."

http://law.stackexchange.com/questions/15098/can-a-president-of-the-united-states-be-arrested-for-previous-crimes

[PoliticAverse]

52. If you actually go to the URL you included, you'll find they've removed the "even the president". nt

[PJMcK]

14. The president is the chief law enforcement officer in the country

The Justice Department- and by extension, all of US law enforcement- is under presidential control so there isn't an authority to take him/her into custody. And as MineralMan writes above (#6), the Secret Service would never let anyone take custody of the president.

[Maru Kitteh]

49. Under this logic, an regular officer could not arrest a police chief or commisioner

for committing a crime that the officer witnessed. They can.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

62. If he commits a state crime, such as murder, he would be subject to state prosecution.

Secret Service would be obstructing justice if they prevented an arrest. Their mandate is protect The President wherever he goes. They would have to make accommodations for an arrest but they shouldn't obstruct.

We are a nation of laws and The President is not a king. Using the argument that he has more guns doesn't make him immune from law. Nowhere in The Constitution does it say he has immunity.

Impeachment, of course, is a political process to remove The President from office but that is a separate process from criminal proceedings.

The only remedy to remove judges appointed for life is impeachment. But they have been arrested in the past and remained judges until impeachment. Just because impeachment is the only process to remove a President, that doesn't preclude law enforcement.

[PJMcK]

92. Of course you're correct

The fact that we're even having this discussion is rather unusual, wouldn't you say?

[Lee-Lee]

117. Incorrect

He is the chief Law Enforcement Officer for all FEDERAL agencies only.

State agencies do not answer to the DOJ or anyone at the executive branch. Their chain of command stops at the governor of the state.

City departments chain of commands stop at the mayor and/or city council and/or city manager depending on what model of government they use.

As a Deputy Sheriff my chain of command ended at the elected Sheriff for the County. He had no boss and answered only to the voters. He was the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of that county. Literally the President, Attorney General, FBI or anyone else could come tell him to do something and he could tell them to pound sand if he wanted. The only way they can exercise any authority is if they can get the courts to grant an order placing the agency under DOJ control as we have seen in a few cases. Outside that they have no authority on the local level.

This doesn't mean local agencies don't have to follow federal laws, Feds still can enforce them on locals (see Arpio) but they can't regulate them outside enforcing Federal laws.

[PJMcK]

122. Thanks for the clarification

Your explanation raises a question, though. Don't Federal powers trump (sorry!) States' powers? In other words, would a State Trooper have the authority to arrest the president?

[Lee-Lee]

125. I can't find any law that would prohibit it

State LEO's arrest Federal LEO's for crimes all the time, state LEO's arrest federal elected officials.

The only way a state law can be enforced is by a state or local LEO sworn in that state. A Federal LEO cannot arrest someone for a violation of state law.

So if Trump stood in the middle of 5th Avenue and shot somebody, as he fantasizes about, that murder would be a violation of NY law and not Federal law unless the feds could find a way to make it fit the specific categories that bring Federal jurisdiction. So an LEO sworn in NY State would have to make the arrest.

If they couldn't arrest him it would make him essentially immune from all state laws.

[cheyanne]

16. What about Bill Clinton? He wasn't arrested but his accusers could bring a suit against him

while he was in office.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. Presidents can be sued, but not arrested.

He is not being removed from his job.

[BainsBane]

26. but what says he can't be arrested?

Is the president truly above the law?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. That is why impeachment is a remedy.

Once he's impeached and removed he can be arrested.

[BainsBane]

42. okay, hypothetical

Say you have a president who is a Russian spy. The FBI tells congress that the president is a traitor and shows them the evidence, but the majority party refuses to act because they are fucking assholes. So then you have a criminal in office. Why couldn't he be tried in a court of law? Impeachment is a political act, not a criminal one. How can it be that a citizen is only subject to the law of the land after his own party makes a political decision to remove him from office?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

58. You would have a crisis.

[PJMcK]

47. From a certain perspective, yes, the president is above the law

Actually, a better way to phrase it is that the president is at the top of the law. He/she is the chief of the Executive Branch under which all of law enforcement in the country operates. Therefore, all levels of law enforcement ultimately fall into the president portfolio. Additionally, there isn't an authority that is above that level of government.

Of course, the Constitution stipulates that the president can be impeached and removed from office when the then-private citizen could be prosecuted for crimes committed while president. Since it hasn't happened, there are probably many court cases that would be engaged most likely leading to SCOTUS cases.

[BainsBane]

23. that was a civil suit

So Trump could be sued for activities not related to the presidency. For example, if any of the women he's assaulted decide to bring suit. But civil suits don't result in arrest.

[Maru Kitteh]

29. Yes. A president can be arrested.

The president is a citizen. All citizens are subject to the law.

[tgards79]

31. Thank you.

[Maru Kitteh]

63. I can't believe this is even a question. The president is a CITIZEN. This is not a

tin-pot republic or North Korea.

[stevenleser]

71. It's a question because of how our Constitution is set up, not people's opinions. See #48 below. nt

[Maru Kitteh]

74. President Grant was arrested for speeding.

http://wtop.com/news/2012/10/dc-police-once-arrested-a-us-president-for-speeding/

[stevenleser]

78. Yes, I know you think that proves something, but it doesnt. This isn't the 1800s. nt

[Maru Kitteh]

79. Wow. Bad day for you?

I haven't seen anyone cite a code showing the person of the president to be exempt from criminal law.

[stevenleser]

80. Nope, Post #48 shows actual constitutional scholars considering the question. We don't need to guess

[Maru Kitteh]

85. I don't really care. Absent codification it's just so much theory. nt

[stevenleser]

124. It's not theory, and it's not complicated. nt

[Kentonio]

113. Interesting. Presumably that would be cited as precedent if it ever came to a SC case on the issue?

[Bucky]

66. Sure, but it'd have to be something pretty obvious. Like knocking over a liquor store

There was the movie once where Gene Hackman was president and he killed a hooker or something. Clint Eastwood was able to arrest him, but it took some doing.

[Maru Kitteh]

68. Yeah, movies are great.

For sure, I don't think any officers are going to be slapping the cuffs on Donny for lifting a gold toothbrush at Sax or anything. But it still holds. The president is a citizen and all citizens are subject to the law.

[stevenleser]

70. That's not what happened in that movie titled "Absolute Power"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_Power_(film)

Eastwood convinces an old trusted friend of the President to kill the President. And it wasn't a hooker that got killed and it wasn't the President killing her, it was the wife of the old trusted friend and she was shot by the secret service when she attacked the President while he was behaving abusively toward her in the midst of an affair the two were carrying on.

The point of all that goes to the question in the OP. The President (any President) could not be arrested. And because of the circumstances, an impeachment was unlikely.

[Bucky]

72. You're free to believe that, but I have alternative facts!

Now buy my boss's daughter's purse!!

[unblock]

36. some of this isn't know for sure until it's tested, but here's what i think:

the president can be sued in civil court and such cases can proceed during office (happened to bill clinton, and donnie continues to be involved in multiple lawsuits).

the president can be indicted while in office but not arrested or tried until out of office, one way or another.

impeachment and removal isn't a criminal trial, so there's no double jeopardy problem. a president could be impeached and removed and later tried and sent to prison for the essentially the same crime.

[frankieallen]

38. Nobody is above the law, a president can be charged with a crime just like any other

citizen. Arrest really doesn't mean anything, it's the summons to appear in court to face charges that matters.

[ADX]

51. Absolutely correct...

...Ulysses Grant was actually once arrested for speeding down M Street in D.C. His carriage was impounded, and he was fined and allowed to walk back to the White House:

http://wtop.com/news/2012/10/dc-police-once-arrested-a-us-president-for-speeding/

[Stinky The Clown]

41. I suspect if he, let's say, committed murder by his own hand, he'd be arrested.

[BainsBane]

45. and treason or espionage?

against the USA?

[Stinky The Clown]

64. Those crimes are just as serious as murder, so, yeah.

[Bucky]

67. But here, the treason may occur within the scope of official duties

Presidents can do all sorts of things that could turn out to be treasonous. Making a case and making arrests there would be very different than, say, catching him knifing an ambassador or peeing on a hooker.

Treason on the presidential level also falls under the category of high crimes and misdemeanors. Throwing his punk son-in-law out a window might be tacky, but it's not a high crime. It's an ordinary crime.

And I don't think he should do that, by the way, just in case the NSA is monitoring this conversation.

[Stinky The Clown]

82. In his case the treason predates his presidency, quite likely

[onenote]

48. Leading scholars: There is no clear answer to the question. See below

http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2573&context=facpub

[Orsino]

103. After Trump, new provisions will have to be made...

...to cover the shit we thought that no grown-ass president would ever try.

[Louis1895]

50. It supposedly has happened before...

Metro Policeman Arrests U.S. President for Speeding

[BainsBane]

69. Great story!

[still_one]

54. Impeached first, then arrested

[cemaphonic]

56. Most likely not

It's not really directly addressed by the Constitution, but as far as I've ever seen, the prevailing legal theory is that a sitting president cannot be directly indicted in a criminal trial (although in Nixon and Clinton's cases, there are limits to what they can shield under such immunity)

If compelling evidence turned up of a sitting President committing a serious crime, they could be impeached, removed, and then tried in an ordinary criminal trial. I'm pretty sure that a President whose term has expired could still be tried for offenses committed while President too, so it's not a blanket immunity - it just means that they can't be tried while they are currently the acting President.

[burnbaby]

57. no but you can sue them

a sitting President of the United States has no immunity from civil law litigation against him or her, for acts done before taking office and unrelated to the office.

[LeftInTX]

59. I would think if he was involved in something like child porn, murder or arson

the criminal justice system would get involved.

Presidents tend to be isolated from the rest of society, so they are less likely to commit crimes. For instance, it would be pretty hard for a president to set fire to a building. If a president would strangle or stab colleague, I assume it would be part of the criminal justice system.

However, a president can't be charged with murder for declaring war under false pretenses.

I am not a lawyer.

[stevenleser]

73. The short answer to your question is No, he really can't. There is more to it obviously.

If the President became a dangerous criminal, for instance, the VP and his cabinet could declare him unfit for office upon which he would temporarily be removed from office and then the Acting President (the VP) could order him detained. He could then be impeached at congress' leisure and officially removed and then prosecuted.

See the 25th amendment, section 4
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

[Maru Kitteh]

75. Not only can it happen - it has happened.

http://wtop.com/news/2012/10/dc-police-once-arrested-a-us-president-for-speeding/

[stevenleser]

76. I read it. It still can't happen. This isn't the 1800s. nt

[onenote]

95. The actual short answer is no one onows

Nor can anyone know unless and until an attempt is made And the courts finally have to decide. Anyone claiming to "know" the answer is just guessing. See post 48.

[stevenleser]

123. I saw post 48. Reading between the lines of the discussion, the answer is no.

It's not complicated.

[Maru Kitteh]

77. President Grant was arrested for speeding. They impounded his buggy and presumably he had to walk

back to the White House.

http://wtop.com/news/2012/10/dc-police-once-arrested-a-us-president-for-speeding/

[grantcart]

84. Great Catch

They warned him 3 times before citing him.

I am sure that the reason was that the higher speeds spooked horses and created a dangerous situation:

[Solly Mack]

81. That "no one is above the law" is a catchy, feel good saying. But that's about all it is.

Once out of office a president can be arrested, but then you run into the will (or lack thereof) to do so and any statute of limitations.

So, impeach and convict resulting in said president being tossed from office. Then arrest and prosecute.

But so not likely.

If a president that tortures people is safe from prosecution then so is Trump. And Trump knows it too.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

93. He/she would need impeached and then convicted by the Senate.

At that point, the Senate's Sergeant at Arms could arrest the President.

[meow2u3]

94. Can a sitting President be indicted and convicted of a crime?

I'm asking this because members of Congress had been indicted, tried, and convicted before facing expulsion and subsequent imprisonment.

[onenote]

96. See post 48.

[BainsBane]

99. Yes, criminal indictment is what I should have said

rather than arrest.

[Foamfollower]

100. Yes, a president CAN be arrested for crimes.

The process must begin with that president's removal from office via impeachment in the House and conviction in the Senate, removal via a majority of the cabinet and consent of 2/3 of each house of Congress (25th amendment procedures), resignation, or completion of their term in office.

Once the president has left office, they are subject to any form of arrest, criminal indictment, trial, and conviction like anybody else.

So with presidents, the process is longer and takes more work, but they are subject to criminal penalties under the law just like anybody else.

[BainsBane]

101. but what if the president's party refuses to impeach?

Impeachment is a political act. Criminal prosecution is a legal one.

[rock]

102. I believe there are lots of LEOs who

given an arrest warrant would be glad to make an attempt at serving it. As far as the SS protecting the president, they could continue to do that. Being under arrest is not a threat to the person.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

104. I don't think the Secret Service is going to allow you to put the pres in cuffs and take him away.

[Foamfollower]

105. I don't believe you read my post.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

108. I was referring to rock who said a sitting president could be arrested.

Of course once he's removed from office he is subject to the same laws as an ordinary citizen.

Here's another scenario. The president pardons himself.

[Foamfollower]

110. I believe the SCOTUS would rule such a pardon unconstitutional.

No president has ever attempted to pardon themself. I believe that the first time any president attempted to do so, the SCOTUS would rule unanimously that a president cannot constitutionally pardon themself, only another president can pardon a president. The argument before the court would be that if a president can pardon themself, then presidents are above the law.

Plus, any attorney worth their salt would advise a president against such action because pardoning themself is tanamount to admission of guilt and could be used against them in a trial since any attorney would surmise the odds of such a pardon being ruled unconstitutional to be very high. An attorney would advise a president that the pardon must come via the Nixon precedent and their successor must be the one to pardon.

[Kentonio]

114. Which opens a new question.

Whether the SS agents could then be arrested too. For obstruction of justice. Presumably the Secret Service also isn't above the law.

[mnmoderatedem]

107. yes but

if they come after him with a warrant, I picture a Warden Samuel Norton scenario, a la The Shawshank Redemption.

[newblewtoo]

111. Reading this

thread has cause a terrible acne flare up the result of my regressing to eighth grade Civics class. Here is a great synopsis for those who may not want a trip down memory lane or finds the lane paved over: http://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-system/presidential-impeachment-the-legal-standard-and-procedure.html

[Lurks Often]

112. Unknown, especially since a President is in a sense "two people"

While acting under the authority of the powers of the Constitution and in the role of President, no President can be arrested, only impeached and convicted by Congress.

Acting as an individual, yes in theory that person can be arrested. In practice it would likely end up in front of SCOTUS.

The Secret Service is not going to allow anyone to arrest the President, the primary and in reality, the only role of those assigned to the Presidential detail is the protection of the President above all else. Given that the Secret Service is around the President 24/7, it is unlikely any President could commit a criminal act as the Secret Service would prevent him from doing so.

In the end this a discussion into hypothetical scenarios extraordinarily unlikely to ever happen.

[Lee-Lee]

115. In theory any state or local LEO would have authority to arrest for arrestable offenses in their

jurisdiction.

Nothing exempts federal elected officials from having to follow state late and nothing makes them immune from arrest or prosecution for violations of state or local law.

Now, getting the Secret Service to allow it might be another matter. That would open up a whole interesting new area of law regarding if they have the legal authority to interfere with the enforcement of local laws. Generally when they are protecting the President nobody questions or challenges them when what they seek to do conflicts with local laws, but if it came down to it the issue of them being able to block an arrest would make for some interesting days in the courts. If the arresting agency took measures to ensure they were allowed to still maintain the Presidents safety then there wouldn't me much case for them to block it.

Now considering that possibly makes me smile at the idea of Trump arrested for a state criminal violation and released awaiting trial with an ankle monitor on...

[ismnotwasm]

120. Such an interesting question

While answer seems to be "No" from casual googling, it made me wonder--so say a present commits what is clearly first degree murder--in front of other authorities, and is clearly going to do it again. What happens next?

[laserhaas]

121. Nixon was pardoned by Ford

To see to it that no arrest, etc., would occur.