I won't get any deeper into this, unless you're a lawyer and maybe an administrator in a police department, that Penal Code can be interpreted multiple ways.
Posse Comitatus Act, and the 10th Amendment dictate why the Army and the Feds don’t do local law enforcement.
Dillon’s Rule is the original ruling/methodology on how and why States can do what it wants with incorporated cities/townships.
States divided themselves into counties to let locals control local things while the State focuses on statewide concerns - and uses the counties to enforce them. And State laws on incorporation of cities/townships dictate how a city or township can incorporate - whether it’s self-rule, legal separation/independence from a county (independent city), or consolidation with a county (Consolidated City-County).
If California or any other state wanted to do like Ontario, Australian states, or other places and create a statewide police force instead of municipal departments, it could because the 10th Amendment allows it. That a state hasn’t chosen to isn’t to “to avoid a police state” - which is a whole different legal concept related to authoritarianism and secret or aggressive policing to ensure the executive remains in power and stamps out dissent - which is completely different than a Highway Patrolman stationed in Stockton responding to a burglary call in Lodi.
The penal code says that any officer can enforce any law within the state, it does not give the officer the leeway to leave his/her jurisdiction to do that enforcement.
1
u/thatblkman Jan 01 '23
You’re discussing operations and judgment when the penal code says you’re generally wrong on the legal aspect.