LITTLE ROCK — Federal law enforcement officials would be required to get permission slips from county sheriffs before making arrests in Arkansas under legislation proposed by state Rep. Denny Altes, RFort Smith.

The bill would also require federal agents to get a local sheriff’s approval, in writing, before conducting a search or seizure.

Federal agents who act without county permission would be prosecuted unless they’re enforcing customs and immigrations laws, the bill states.

The law also exempts federal agents from prosecution if they’re trying to stop a crime in progress.

If the sheriff had a conflict of interest or the target was a state or local government official, the federal agents could seek authorization from the state attorney general.

Altes said none of the sheriffs in the state’s 75 counties has contacted him to signify their support for the bill. Altes says he can’t remember who asked him to file the legislation, but he’s pretty sure someone had wanted it introduced.

The legislation, which Altes filed this month, has merit, he added.

The legislation is intended to require federal agents to communicate with sheriffs and is a good idea, Altes said.

No other state has a similar law, according to a spokesman for the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Republican-controlled legislatures in two Western states have passed similar legislation, but Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican, and Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer, a Democrat, vetoed the measures during the past two years.

Arkansas law allows special agents, deputies, investigators and other full-time law enforcement officers for more than a dozen federal agencies, ranging from the FBI to the Internal Revenue Service, to make arrests for violations of state laws.

Pulaski County Sheriff Doc Holladay said he has a hard time understanding why this bill “would be necessary given our relationship with federal law enforcement.”

“Honestly, this bill seems to presume that sheriffs or prosecutors or the attorney general have some kind of bad relationship with the federal authorities,” he said. “Sheriffs in this state for the most part have very good working relationships with federal law enforcement and share resources and share information and work [together] very well in investigations,” he said.

With no sheriffs embracing the measure, Altes says he won’t be pushing to pass the bill. But he’s not withdrawing it either.

And that’s not unusual, Altes said.

“I file a lot of bills that are never run,” he said in a recent interview.

Altes’ filing of his legislation has prompted some county sheriffs, prosecutors and other law enforcement officials in the state to wonder about the motive behind the legislation.

After all, the measure says it’s intended to “prevent misadventure affecting Arkansas citizens and their rights that results from lack of cooperation or communication between federal employees operating in Arkansas and properly constituted local law enforcement authorities.”

In addition, it declares that Arkansas will not recognize or obey any federal law purporting to give a federal employee a county sheriff’s authority in Arkansas.

Some question whether the legislation, if enacted, would be constitutional.

A year ago, the South Carolina attorney general’s office said a court would likely rule that similar proposed legislation, which would regulate federal law enforcement, would be pre-empted by the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution.

“Under the supremacy clause, state law cannot operate to impede individuals who have federal authority to enforce federal laws, and who act as necessary and proper within that federal authority,” according to South Carolina Senior Assistant Attorney General N. Mark Rapoport. “If federal employees are to perform their duties vigorously, they cannot be unduly constrained or undermined by fear of state prosecutions.”

Paula Casey, interim dean of the William H. Bowen School of Law at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock and a former U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas from 1993-2000, said it’s always good for federal and local law enforcement agencies to work together to avoid all sorts of problems.

But she said the legislation, if enacted, “would probably lead to some litigation and some constitutional issues that would need to be hashed out.”

Under a legal challenge, a judge could determine whether the measure runs afoul of the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution under which the state has to follow the federal law if there is a conflict with state law, Casey said.

Altes said he doesn’t know whether the legislation violates the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution or could lead to potential litigation.

“I don’t know much about it. I just filed it for somebody else [in 2011],” he said.

Altes initially said he filed the same legislation in 2011 as House Bill 1028 at the suggestion of state Rep. Debra Hobbs, R-Rogers.

But Hobbs, whose proposed resolution requesting the federal government to “cease and desist” infringing on Arkansas’ sovereignty failed to clear a House committee before she softened its tone in 2009, said she doesn’t recall suggesting that Altes file such legislation.

“That is not to say he may have mentioned it to me, and I could have suggested he file such legislation,” she added.

Altes said later that he’s “not positive” that Hobbs suggested filing the legislation in 2011. He said another Northwest Arkansas lawmaker may have suggested filing the measure instead, but he doesn’t recall whom it might have been.

As for why he filed the measure again for the 2013 session, he said he probably shouldn’t have done so because “nobody asked me to file it this time.”

Altes said he considers the legislation to be a good idea but no particular incident gave rise to the measure.

“If the federal government comes in, and let’s say they are working on the north side [of town] and they are going to raid some house or take somebody in, it looks like what they need to do is call the sheriff ’s department and say, ‘We are going to run on the north side and if you see people with guns don’t shoot us,’” Altes said. “There is a possibility that some neighbor could call and say, ‘There are some people out here with guns,’ and the sheriff shows up and you get a Mexican standoff. You get the federal government against the sheriff’s department.”

Holladay said federal authorities already cooperate with local law enforcement.

“I am not understanding why he would assume that I would want to be notified every time some federal law enforcement was to make an arrest in this county,” he said.

Ronnie Baldwin, executive director of the Arkansas Sheriffs’ Association and a former Cross County sheriff, said the bill, if enacted, could hurt the cooperative working relationship between county sheriffs and federal law enforcement authorities.

If the bill passes and is upheld by the courts, the county sheriff or his designee may refuse to grant written permission for any reason that he considers sufficient under the legislation.

Altes’ legislation would require a federal employee to get written permission of the attorney general to make an arrest or conduct a search or seizure under certain circumstances.

Such permission would be required if the federal employee wants to make an arrest or conduct a search or seizure and the intended subject is an employee of the sheriff, an elected county or state officer, or has close connections with the sheriff and is likely to be informed of the impending action. That permission wouldn’t be required under certain limited conditions.

The attorney general may refuse to grant permission for any reasons that he considers sufficient under the legislation.

However, Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel, a Democrat, wasn’t consulted about the bill, said McDaniel spokesman Aaron Sadler.

“We do not see any need for the attorney general’s office to be involved in disputes between county sheriffs and federal law enforcement agents, in the unlikely event that such arise,” he said.

The permission granted by the county sheriff or attorney general to a federal employee under the bill would be valid for 48 hours.

Front Section, Pages 1 on 12/23/2012