Yeah, it gets messy. The bottom line, I think, is this:
"In order for the United States to obtain jurisdiction over national forest lands, "both the state and federal governments [must] agree to the transfer" of jurisdiction." Id. at 612 (quoting United States v. Johnson, 994 F.2d 980, 984 (2nd Cir.
1993))."
So basically, it looks like Wyoming has to agree to transfer jurisdiction to the US and the US has to agree to take it? I don't know. That document scrambled my brain.
It looks like the defendant in that case was arguing that the US had no jurisdiction to prosecute him and the court said either the US or the state could legally prosecute him. So, concurrent jurisdiction. At least in Michigan.
But, from reading that case, it looks like jurisdiction also depends on state law passed or not passed when the forest was established in that state in the first place. I guess we have to look to Wyoming law for that.
My opinion, which could be totally wrong. lol
Your opinion, but given what people are now posting (and sending me in DM's), I think you're right. I can see how Teton County might want to push this over into Federal Court - it would be good PR for the feds, really - and cost them much less as a percentage of their budget - I think).
Someone posted about a murder in Joshua Tree that may have been tried in San Bernardino County - I remember that one too. NP's are definitely treated as US territory, whereas NF's give the states lots of leeway to "harvest" and "use" federal lands within their state boundaries. States seem to retain primary jurisdicton.
You are kidding?
@MyBelle brought up a reasonable issue: being scared enough to have a welfare check done.
Respectfully snipped for focus
When they found out Brian was there, they were scared to death for Gabby.
So, after LE arrived at the Laundrie residence on Sept 11, surely LE reported back to Gabby's family that the van was visible in the driveway? It didn't take very long (next day?) for the van to be taken away. That gave the Laundries 10 days to remove Gabby's things (and maybe all things) from the van? LE could not have said "We saw BL," because they didn't but natural deduction tells us someone had to drive the van - and it wasn't Gabby or she'd be calling her family.
Now, we hear that BL was last seen by his parents on the 13th. I wonder if that's true. I wonder why they were confused about the dates. (Remember the whole phone buying thing and the 4th vs the 14th? Well, if he left on the 13th, then it couldn't have been the 14th when he was seen at the ATT store - unless of course...he actually was on camera there, in which case the parents aren't being forthcoming or truthful about when they last saw him).
But let's just go with ATT on the 4th (14th was some reporter's typo) and BL disappears on the 13th. Two days after LE comes to the door in search of Gabby. Surely LE asked "Is Gabby Petito here" and were then given merely a lawyer's card? Not even a "no"?
I wonder what happened in between the evening of the 11th, when BL was almost certainly in the house, and the 13th, when the Mustang was driven by someone to the W. Creek.
Am I wrong about the welfare check date?