Document Woodburn_doc_708ff00d1b

MEMORANDUM OPINION NO. 2026-01 TO: Scott Derickson, City Administrator Jason Millican, Police Chief FROM: McKenzie Granum, City Attorney DATE: January 14, 2026 RE: Local Law Enforcement Role in Response to Federal Immigration Enforcement & Escalations by ICE Agents I. ISSUE You have requested a supplemental legal opinion to Memorandum Opinion No. 2025-01 that was issued last year regarding Oregon’s Sanctuary Laws and the intersection between local law enforcement activity and intensifying federal immigration enforcement efforts in Woodburn. Specifically, you have asked our office to focus on guidance and direction for local law enforcement who may encounter situations involving federal civil immigration enforcement efforts or agents and define both the role and responsibility our officers have in such situations, as well as what greater role the City as an organization may take in response to the growing presence of federal agents in our community. Specifically, this memorandum’s purpose is to provide additional guidance on the following questions and concerns:  What are law enforcement officers’ roles and responsibilities when responding to calls for service for incidents that may ultimately be identified as federal immigration enforcement actions?  What jurisdictional authority does Woodburn law enforcement have to investigate suspected crimes committed by federal agents?  What duty do Woodburn officers have to intervene in circumstances where they observe excessive force being used by a federal agent?  Do Woodburn officers have any role in investigating suspected crimes committed against federal agents?  What, if anything, can the City as an organization do to respond to the public’s concerns regarding federal immigration enforcement activities? II. BACKGROUND Over the past year, Woodburn has seen a marked increase in federal immigration enforcement activities in the community. During this time, Woodburn police have received a ---PAGE BREAK--- Memorandum Opinion No. 2026-01 January 14, 2026 Page 2 number of calls for service and responded to a variety of scenes that ultimately involved the actions of federal agents. Given the changing landscape of federal immigration enforcement, it is important that additional guidance be provided to City law enforcement members who may encounter such situations where federal actions intersect with their own duties and responsibilities. A. Oregon’s Sanctuary Promise Law As discussed in more detail in Memorandum Opinion No. 2025-01, Oregon is a state- wide “sanctuary” jurisdiction. Meaning that under state law, all state and local law enforcement authorities and public agencies (including local governments) in Oregon are prohibited from participating directly or indirectly in federal immigration enforcement without a judicial warrant. The Sanctuary Promise Act1 also requires all requests made by federal agencies to state and local law enforcement and government agencies regarding immigration enforcement without a judicial order to be documented, reported, and denied. Important to remember, however, is that this law is only a restriction on the actions and conduct of state and local officials (i.e. a state-level mandate directing non-cooperation with federal officials) and does not bind or control the conduct or actions of federal agents. B. Regulations Governing Federal Law Enforcement Conduct Congress has broad authority to regulate federal law enforcement officers and agencies such as Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Existing federal law provides a number of criminal, administrative, and civil remedies to hold law enforcement officers and agents accountable for misconduct. The chief criminal law regulating federal law enforcement officers is 18 USC § 242, which makes it a crime for a person “acting under the color of law” to deprive someone of their constitutionally protected rights. The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) is responsible for enforcing Section 242, and the Supreme Court has explained that prosecutions under this section require that the DOJ show that the defendant has a “specific intent to deprive a person of a federal right made definite by decision or other rule of law.” Examples of misconduct prosecuted under the statute include excessive force, sexual assault, intentional false arrest, or the intentional fabrication of evidence resulting in loss of liberty to another. Beyond criminal law, other federal guidelines and statutes provide more limited methods of remedying misconduct by federal law enforcement within the confines of a given agency. The Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL) reviews and investigates civil rights and civil liberties allegations submitted by the public regarding U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policies, activities, and personnel. Under 6 USC § 345 and 42 USC § 2000ee-1, CRCL has been established to receive and investigate allegations involving a range of civil rights and civil liberties abuses, such as: 1 Codified under ORS 180.805, 180.810, and 181A.820 to 181A.829. ---PAGE BREAK--- Memorandum Opinion No. 2026-01 January 14, 2026 Page 3  Discrimination based on race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, or disability;  Violation of rights while in immigration detention or as a subject of immigration enforcement;  Discrimination or inappropriate questioning related to entry into the United States;  Violation of due process rights, such as the right to timely notice of charges or access to a lawyer;  Violation of confidentiality provisions of the Violence Against Women Act;  Physical abuse or any other type of abuse;  Denial of meaningful access to DHS or DHS-supported programs, activities, or services due to limited English proficiency; and  Any other civil rights, civil liberties, or human rights violation related to a Department program or activity, including allegations of discrimination by an organization or program that receives financial assistance from DHS. In addition to the criminal and administrative remedies described above, limited civil remedies also exist for individuals to seek redress against federal law enforcement officials for misconduct. The Supreme Court has recognized an implied cause of action for individuals seeking money damages against individual federal law enforcement officers in certain circumstances. These are typically called Bivens claims,2 wherein the Court has held that a plaintiff can pursue money damages for Fourth Amendment claims when their federally protected rights have been “invaded.”3 Finally, the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) provides an additional civil remedy for the wrongful acts of federal officials. Under the FTCA, plaintiffs may sue the United States for money damages for certain types of state law torts committed by its employees. This generally includes claims of assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, abuse of process, and malicious prosecution committed by certain federal law enforcement officers. C. State Prosecutions of Federal Officials and Federal Immunity As state and local officials increasingly scrutinize the conduct of federal officials4 over their immigration enforcement tactics and policing of protests, the question about prosecuting federal agents for violations of state law has risen to the forefront of discussion. Examples of such prosecutions stretch back to at least the early 1800s, but come with a mixed track record.5 2 Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 US 388 (1971). 3 This would include claims alleging illegal search and seizure and excessive use of force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Since Bivens, an implied remedy for constitutional violations committed by federal actors was extended in two other circumstances: Claims brought under the equal protection principals of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause; and Claims brought under the Eighth Amendment in circumstances where adequate medical treatment is not provided to federal prisoners. 4 A “federal officer” is defined as “any officer, agent, or employee of the United States authorized by law or by a government agency to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of any violation of Federal criminal law.” 18 USC § 115(c)(1). 5 Many cases from the 1800s stemmed from states’ disagreement with federal policies and represented outright efforts to obstruct federal action. For example, during the War of 1812, some New England states openly resisted ---PAGE BREAK--- Memorandum Opinion No. 2026-01 January 14, 2026 Page 4 In general, states are legally permitted to prosecute federal officials for state crimes, but within limits. The limits stem from the federal constitutional principle that states should not be able to undermine federal policy via targeted criminal prosecutions, a doctrine known as Supremacy Clause immunity. So, while federal officials are not categorically immune from state criminal prosecution, even while on duty, there is immunity if the federal official’s actions are deemed necessary to carrying out a lawful federal duty.6 In many such cases, the immunity analysis is complex and contested, with outcomes hinging on court-specific elaborations of the legal standard and on the factual particulars. In Oregon, the federal district court considers both whether the charged officer subjectively believed their actions were justified and whether that subjective belief was objectively reasonable under the existing circumstances. In other words, a court will consider not only whether the officer believed in the moment that their actions were justified, but also whether an outsider, when viewing the facts and context that led to the action(s) would reasonably conclude that the action(s) were justified. Furthermore, while an officer or agent’s error in judgment is not enough to establish criminal responsibility, demonstrations of personal interest, malice, or criminal intent are likely indicators of whether an officer will ultimately face criminal liability like anyone else. III. DISCUSSION The Woodburn Police Department (WPD) has been steadfast in its commitment to upholding the Oregon Sanctuary Promise Act while also fostering trust, respect, and communication with the public as a means to keep our City safe. The discussion below further addresses the legal and logistical limitations and challenges placed upon our police personnel when it comes to intervening in- or intersecting with federal immigration enforcement. A. Law enforcement officers’ roles and responsibilities when responding to calls for service for incidents that may ultimately be identified as federal immigration enforcement actions? As clearly delineated under Oregon’s Sanctuary Promise Act, WPD officers shall not cooperate with or assist federal authorities, including ICE/CBP, in any investigation, detention, or arrest procedures related to the enforcement of federal civil immigration law.7 At the same federal trade embargoes, including by pursing state criminal actions against federal customs officers for seizing goods. In the mid-1800s, some Northern states opposed to the Fugitive Slave Act charged U.S. Marshals for capturing or failing to release previously enslaved individuals. In the late-1800s and early 1900s, state prosecutions often centered on federal officers’ enforcement of revenue and prohibition laws. Most prosecutions since the mid- 1900s have centered on alleged misconduct by federal law enforcement officers and include charges for crimes like assault and battery, burglary, manslaughter, and murder. For example, in 1992, a federal official involved in the siege of anti-government separatist, Randall Weaver’s cabin near Ruby Ridge, Idaho, was charged by Idaho prosecutors with involuntary manslaughter for accidently killing Weaver’s unarmed wife. 6 An example would be a federal officer was deemed to be immune from state enforcement of speeding laws while pursuing a fleeing suspect, so long as he acted with reasonable care and prudence in the circumstances. See Lilly v. West Virginia, 29 F2d 61, 64 (4th Cir 1928); see also Puerto Rico v. Torres Chaparro, 738 F Supp 620 (DPR 1990). 7 Officers must follow Department Policy, including Lexipol Policy No. 413, Immigration Violations. ---PAGE BREAK--- Memorandum Opinion No. 2026-01 January 14, 2026 Page 5 time, officers are advised that they may not interfere with or obstruct lawful federal enforcement actions.8 Should officers arrive to a call for service that involves federal immigration agents or officials,9 it is advised that they should: First, assess the situation for any immediate public safety concerns. Woodburn’s local law enforcement officers are still best equipped for immediate scene response and should follow their standard protocols for any necessary emergent scene response independent of whether the involved parties have a federal nexus. The Oregon Sanctuary Promise Act does not prevent local law enforcement from taking actions to protect public safety, such as using lawful crowd control tactics or enforcing criminal laws prohibiting violence and property destruction. Consistent with departmental policy, officers should activate body-worn cameras (BWCs) and notify a supervisor of the status of the scene. To ensure proper oversight and appropriate response to incidents, a supervisor should respond to calls for service that potentially involve federal civil immigration enforcement and when requested by a WPD officer. On-scene supervisors may then further coordinate response actions through consultation with the Chief of Police and City Attorney. Confirm the identity of federal agents should there be a concern about fraudulent impersonations. If officers encounter individuals who are not readily identifiable as federal agents, officers should, when safe and practical to do so, attempt to verify the credentials of the on-scene federal lead-agent, supervisor, or agent in charge. Officers are authorized to take enforcement action if they determine that someone is impersonating a federal officer or employee, which may include detention and arrest. Maintain separation from federal civil immigration enforcement and only take actions necessary to safeguard life and property. Appropriate actions may include rendering aid, responding to criminal activity, continuous observation and reassessment, de- escalating conflict, and traffic management. WPD officers may also provide emergency assistance to ICE/CBP to the same extent they would respond in any emergency (e.g. officer needs emergency help). Share or direct communication with the public pursuant to Departmental Policy.10 WPD officers may provide communication to the public, reassuring them that WPD does not participate in civil immigration enforcement and that their presence is solely to maintain public safety. 8 Additionally, since WPD officers are not judicial officers, they are not in the legal position to confirm the validity or legality of warrants used by ICE/CBP for their operations. 9 Responses to calls for services, regardless of whether they are initiated by community members or federal officials, should be prioritized and managed comparably and consistently with departmental policy. 10 Lexipol Policy No. 326. ---PAGE BREAK--- Memorandum Opinion No. 2026-01 January 14, 2026 Page 6 B. What jurisdictional authority does Woodburn law enforcement have to investigate suspected crimes committed by federal agents? As detailed above, the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution protects federal officers from state criminal prosecution when those officers are acting in their official capacity or performing official duties. This immunity would also apply to those suspected of traffic violations,11 which are prosecuted by the City Attorney’s office in municipal court.12 The reality is that logistical limitations that apply in investigating and prosecuting a case against a federal officer make it nearly impossible. First, even if the WPD receives a complaint against a federal officer for wrongdoing, the typical investigatory process used by WPD would be difficult to apply. As outlined in an opinion from the Marion County District Attorney’s (DA’s) Office, federal officers are not required to comply with local subpoenas, investigatory protocols, or best practices for criminal prosecution in state court. Evidence that cannot be obtained by state prosecutors also includes, but is not limited to, BWC or dash-cam footage of federal officers, interviews of federal officer witnesses, and medical records of officers. Evidence obtained by non-law-enforcement sources and any fruit derived therefrom must also be evaluated using appropriate lawful admissibility standards. Another privilege afforded to federal officers involves the transfer of prosecution from state court to federal court. Under 28 USC § 1442, cases against federal officials filed in state court can and are usually transferred to federal court.13 This change in venue adds yet another barrier to prosecuting such cases (including the prosecution of traffic violations, which are typically handled at the municipal court level). For these reasons, the Marion County DA’s Office memorandum on “Best Practices” for Investigations Involving Federal Employees also specifies that “local law enforcement should only consider investigating and subsequent prosecution with full federal cooperation . . . The memo further details that “While no special considerations will be granted to federal professionals, nothing [prohibits] consideration of the impact of federal immunity, removal, supremacy clause, or other legal principles that may affect the investigation and availability of state prosecution.”14 11 Traffic violations likely subject to immunity provisions include the operation of a vehicle without valid license plates, speeding, operating with tinted windows, and other related violations. 12 While WPD officers could find themselves in a situation where they have initiated a stop of a violating vehicle, if the officer discovers during that stop that the driver of the vehicle is a federal agent acting in their official capacity or performing official functions, the WPD and City Attorney’s office would be unable to enforce traffic violations against that driver. 13 State prosecutors would continue to prosecute the case in federal court, with the federal court applying substantive law and federal procedural law. At a minimum, the unfamiliarity and relative complexity of federal criminal procedures and customs add time and expense to the prosecution. 14 MARION COUNTY INVESTIGATIONS INVOLVING FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, Best Practices, Memorandum, Marion County District Attorney (2025). ---PAGE BREAK--- Memorandum Opinion No. 2026-01 January 14, 2026 Page 7 Given the heightened conditions and complex barriers involved with investigating and successfully prosecuting a federal official,15 even for a minor traffic violation, the City would need to approach such a decision with the full support of the WPD, City Attorney’s office, DA’s office, and possibly with state-level assistance from the Oregon Department of Justice.16 Ultimately, any claims of wrongdoing by ICE/CBP agents will be referred to the DA and the proper federal investigatory agencies, including the U.S. Attorney’s Office, who have the power, resources, and duty to prosecute federal crimes. 17 C. What duty do Woodburn officers have to intervene in circumstances where they observe excessive force being used by a federal agent? Oregon law, specifically through House Bill 4205 (HB 4205), mandates that police and reserve officers must intervene to stop another officer from engaging in misconduct or using excessive force, if they can do so safely, and then report the incident within 72 hours.18 However, the provisions of Oregon’s law apply to the reporting and investigation of other Oregon-state certified officers, and not to federal officials and agents. Meaning that WPD has no legal obligation to intervene in the acts of federal officials, even those that appear criminal in nature. Furthermore, the federal government, through various channels, has indicated that any action by local law enforcement that they categorize as intervention or obstruction of federal immigration enforcement, could result in the arrest and prosecution of that officer by the federal government.19 As emphasized under Subsection III.A above, WPD’s role in federal civil immigration enforcement actions is to remain neutral, not aid ICE/CBP activities, and take limited action only in circumstances where there is an immediate public safety concern that can readily be addressed consistent with departmental policy. As we see intensifying federal activity in Woodburn, situations may arise in which it becomes impossible or unsafe for Woodburn PD officers to put 15 See State v. Landis, No 25-447 (9th Cir Argued Oct 21, 2025)(A high-profile case of DEA Agent, Samuel Landis, charged in Oregon with criminally negligent homicide for hitting and killing a cyclist in March 2023 while on a federal surveillance mission, with Landis ultimately granted federal immunity from state prosecution by federal courts, leading to dismissal of the charges despite the State of Oregon's appeals. The core legal issue was whether the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution protected Landis from state law when acting as a federal officer, with the federal judge ruling his actions, though deadly, were a reasonable part of his duty to catch his team). 16 Attorney General Dan Rayfield Announces Investigation into Shooting Involving Federal Agents in Portland, Media Release (Jan 8, 2026). See also recent cases where state-level law enforcement is directing and assuming the investigation of federal agents, e.g. Colorado Bureau of Investigation to Investigate ICE Demonstration Incident in Durango, Colorado Bureau of Investigation, Department of Public Safety (Oct 30, 2025). 17 It should be noted that the U.S. Deputy Attorney General issued a letter last year to the State of California that stated that “The Department of Justic views any arrest of federal agents and officers in the performance of their official duties as both illegal and futile. . . . [and] federal agents and officers will continue to enforce federal law and will not be deterred by the threat of arrest. . . U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General (Oct 23, 2025). 18 ORS 181A.681. 19 The U.S. Office of the Attorney General Issued a letter on September 29, 2025, that specified that the U.S. Attorney’s Office shall “prosecute any individual who assaults or forcibly impedes or intimidates [officers protecting ICE facilities and personnel], who interfere with the performance of these officers’ official duties, or who attempt to do so. . . Ending Political Violence, Office of the Attorney General (Sept 29, 2025). ---PAGE BREAK--- Memorandum Opinion No. 2026-01 January 14, 2026 Page 8 themselves between ICE/CBP agents and members of the public. In such a circumstance, Woodburn officers should seek additional guidance from their immediate supervisor or the Sergeant on scene, collect, track, and monitor complaints in the WPD’s CAD system, investigate potential federal misconduct after the fact, and direct follow-up through other channels like referrals to the Marion County DA’s office, U.S. Attorney’s office, the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. DOJ, or the Oregon DOJ’s Federal Oversight and Accountability Reporting Process. D. Do Woodburn officers have any role in investigating suspected crimes committed against federal agents? As specified under the previously referenced Marion County DA’s Office memorandum, should a federal professional acting in their official capacity be identified as a victim of criminal activity, local law enforcement should notify both the Marion County DA and federal partners for investigatory referral. This notification allows federal law enforcement, not the WPD, to investigate the matter and transfers subsequent case management to the U.S. Attorney’s Office. E. What, if anything, can the City as an organization further do to respond to the public’s concerns regarding federal immigration enforcement activities? The Trump Administration has made it abundantly clear that federal ICE/CBP agents will continue to apply combative and aggressive tactics to carry out their immigration enforcement agenda. This includes agents storming apartment complexes, using unmarked vehicles, wearing masks, deploying military-style tactics, smashing out vehicle windows, and increasingly using chemical agents. Many government officials have publicly decried the use of these tactics and have called for Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to cease its unconstitutional use of force. Just this week, the City of Chicago joined the State of Illinois and Minnesota in filing federal lawsuits arguing that DHS and its agencies (ICE, CBP, Border Patrol) have engaged in unlawful and violent tactics, racial profiling, and political retaliation against Democratic-led "sanctuary" jurisdictions. The core of their allegations include that Federal agents' tactics, including conducting arrests in "sensitive" locations like schools and hospitals, using excessive force, and deploying tear gas on protesters, has created a climate of fear, deterring residents (regardless of immigration status) from seeking public services or engaging in daily activities. The lawsuit also cites incidents of racial profiling and Constitutional rights violations; and officials claim that DHS operations are politically motivated and intended to punish states with sanctuary policies. The Plaintiffs also argue that the federal government is unlawfully commandeering local resources, forcing local police to divert officers and incur millions in overtime costs to manage the fallout from federal operations. The purpose and intent of these lawsuits is to hold the federal government accountable and mandate the end of certain tactics by ICE/CBP agents (e.g. concealing of license plates, use of masked agents, etc.). Like other local governments in Oregon and across the Country, Woodburn has an inherent interest in challenging any illegal actions by federal immigration agents operating in our City. However, we must also realize that with limited resources, our ability to respond and react ---PAGE BREAK--- Memorandum Opinion No. 2026-01 January 14, 2026 Page 9 to such situations must be calculated and thoughtful. For that reason, the City Attorney’s office has remained in close contact with other regional local government partners to consider suitable legal avenues for relief. This relief may include class litigation under the FTCA for direct damages incurred by the City as a result of federal immigration enforcement activities, or broader injunctive relief against DHS should legal avenues for such claims become practical. Additionally, we continue to discuss community concerns with our law enforcement partners like the Marion County DA’s office and the Oregon DOJ to ensure that Woodburn remains at the forefront of future discussions regarding community impacts, legal recourse, and funding assistance. IV. CONCLUSION We are in an unprecedented time of heightened tension between states and the federal government. We know that federal immigration enforcement agencies have been permitted by the U.S. Supreme Court (at least temporarily) to administer immigration stops on the mere basis of four factors, including the presence of a person at a particular location (e.g. bus stop, car wash, day-laborer pickup sites, etc.), presumptions about the type of work a person does, whether the person is speaking Spanish or speaking English with an accent, and the apparent race or ethnicity of the person.20 We know that ICE agents in Oregon have been using surveillance technology to identify "target rich" locations; targeting geographic areas rather than individuals; operating under quotas of eight arrests per day; and creating warrants after people are already detained.21 We know that DHS has been alleged to be carrying out immigration raids with violent disregard for human life, traumatizing communities and putting innocent men, women, and children, including U.S. citizens at risk.22 And we can see here in Woodburn the direct toll federal immigration enforcement actions are having on our residents.23 It is important to remember, however, that Woodburn is not alone in grappling to address the concerns discussed in this opinion, and coalitions of other government agencies are also looking at the judicial and legislative mechanisms available to seek redress to the tactics used by ICE/CBP. We see almost daily State and Congressional representatives making their cases heard in both official forums as well as in the news media about curtailing ICE/CBP’s conduct. We see new legislative bills being introduced that would ban face masks and create standards for ICE/CBP identification. We see more resourced jurisdictions, like the City of Chicago and City of Portland, filing lawsuits challenging the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement tactics. And all of these state and federal level movements are bigger than one community, bigger than just Woodburn. I know Woodburn staff can and will continue to engage in discussions with our government partners, we will keep this discussion at the forefront of our duties, and where 20 Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo, 606 US (2025). 21 M-J-M-A- and Gamez v. Hermosillo, Case No. 25-cv-0211-MTK. 22 Homeland Security and Judiciary Committees Launch Investigation into Violent Chicago Immigration Raid, Letter from Congress to Kristi Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Oct 6, 2025). 23 See Public Comment, Woodburn City Council Meetings Nov 10, 2025 and Jan 12, 2026. ---PAGE BREAK--- Memorandum Opinion No. 2026-01 January 14, 2026 Page 10 feasible, we will look at how Woodburn can direct its resources to get accountability for our community. Attachments:  MARION COUNTY INVESTIGATIONS INVOLVING FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, Best Practices, Memorandum, Marion County District Attorney (2025).  Attorney General Dan Rayfield Announces Investigation into Shooting Involving Federal Agents in Portland, Media Release (Jan 8, 2026). ---PAGE BREAK--- MARION COUNTY INVESTIGATIONS INVOLVING FEDERAL EMPLOYEES Best Practices Summary: Recent local increases in federal law enforcement activity including immigration authorities, and federal administrative enforcement agencies have highlighted the need for clear guidelines on how to manage situations where federal actions intersect with local law enforcement investigations. Given the heightened scrutiny attendant to these matters, this document provides guidelines and best practices for law enforcement investigations involving federal employees as either suspects or victims when working in their formal capacity.1 Applicable Definitions & Law: - “Federal Officer”- means any individual that would qualify as a federal law enforcement officer under 18 USC sec. 115(c)(1)(defined as: “any officer, agent, or employee of the United States authorized by law or by a Government agency to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of any violation of Federal criminal law”). For purposes of this process, this definition is intended to include customs and immigration enforcement officers. - Supremacy Clause Immunity - this constitutional doctrine protects federal employees from state criminal prosecution when they are carrying out their federal duties. Immunity can apply when the act in question was authorized by federal law, and the person subjectively believed the action was justified and that belief was objectively reasonable under the existing circumstances. When these conditions are met, a state likely cannot criminally charge or convict an individual due to federal authority precedence over conflicting state laws.2 - 28 U.S.C. § 1442 - a federal statute allowing certain cases filed in state court to be removed to federal court when they involve a federal professional raising the applicable legal defense. A federal employee (specifically, “officers of the United States or any agency thereof”) facing 1 This document does not apply to situations where a person is a victim/suspect/witness outside the scope of their employment who also happens to be a federal officer/agent/employee. 2 This immunity may therefore apply to federal employees/professionals beyond just law enforcement agents. BRENDAN P. MURPHY CHIEF DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT JACQUELINE OSBORNE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES MANAGER PAMI GUERRA VICTIM ASSISTANCE MANAGER CHARLES FUNRUE CHIEF MEDICAL LEGAL DEATH INVESTIGATOR ADULT PROSECUTION (503) 588-5222 JUVENILE DIVISION (503) 588-5389 SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DIVISION (503) 588-5152 MEDICAL EXAMINER PROGRAM (503) 588-5530 VICTIM ASSISTANCE DIVISION (503) 588-5253 KYLIE R. KUHNS CHILD ABUSE TRIAL TEAM LEADER RACHEL L. KLEIN FIREARMS AND SPECIALIZED VIOLENT CRIMES/JUVENILE TRIAL TEAM LEADER SHANNON L. SULLIVAN GENERAL TRIAL TRIAL TEAM LEADER DAVID R. WILSON COMPLEX FELONY TRIAL TEAM LEADER BRADEN R. WOLF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE TRIAL TEAM LEADER MARION COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY P.O. BOX 14500, 555 COURT ST NE SALEM, OREGON 97309 PAIGE E. CLARKSON DISTRICT ATTORNEY ---PAGE BREAK--- charges may have the case removed if the conduct at issue was carried out under color of their federal office (i.e. the act was connected to their official duty or authority). Expectation. In most cases, local criminal investigations involving federal professionals who are acting in their official capacity as either suspects or victims should be referred to federal law enforcement professionals as soon as practicable. For the reasons outlined below, and in consideration of the doctrines outlined above, federal investigatory partners are best equipped and resourced to resolve questions of criminal law involving federal employees acting in their official capacity. Considerations. The following is a non-exclusive list of factors that local law enforcement should consider prior to spending local resources investigating a case involving a federal employee:  Initial Investigation and Scene Response: Local law enforcement are public safety experts and are best equipped for immediate scene response. Therefore, local law enforcement should follow their standard protocols for any necessary emergent scene response independent of whether the involved parties have an official federal nexus. o Notification. Following appropriate immediate scene response, identification and immediate notification of a potential federal nexus is crucial in any criminal investigation. Once a federal professional acting in their official capacity is identified as a victim or suspect, local law enforcement should notify: the Marion County DA via the on call DDA and; federal partners as soon as possible. This notification allows federal law enforcement to investigate the matter and subsequent referral to the U.S. Attorney’s Office. Notification is particularly critical when investigations involve potential criminal conduct by a federal professional. Regardless of state criminal statutes, these defendants may be eligible for removal to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1442 as well as a likely dismissal if acting under color of their authority3. State prosecutors have limited-to-no ability to prohibit this federal process.  Access to Evidence. Federal officers need not comply with local subpoenas, investigatory protocols, nor best practices for criminal prosecution in state court. This can be a significant barrier to effective prosecution. Evidence that cannot be obtained by state prosecutors may include but is not limited to any body worn camera or dashcam video, interviews of witness/victim federal officers, and medical records of federal officers. Such barriers can render meaningful follow-up and state prosecution impossible. Evidence obtained by non-law enforcement (i.e. civilian) sources and any fruit derived therefrom must also be evaluated using appropriate lawful admissibility standards. Those considerations include:  Accuracy & Chain of Custody4: The state must be able to prove that the evidence obtained is what it purports with clear chain of custody. 3 See State v. Landis, No. 25-447 (9th Cir. Argued Oct 21, 2025) 4 See State v. Widerman, 339 Or App 380 (2025). ---PAGE BREAK--- Furthermore, the state must also be able to disprove any claim that evidence has been manipulated.  Witness/Victim Availability. Federal officers often require significant and burdensome coordination with their agency prior to appearing in state court as a witness. Local law enforcement should only consider investigating and subsequent prosecution with full federal cooperation that includes: a. Additional Investigation. A federal officer must willingly participate in further investigation (i.e. consent to access electronic devices, additional interviews, etc.). b. Subsequent Court Proceedings. A federal officer must be willing to return for future court proceedings. The District Attorney’s Office shall not file criminal charges merely to dismiss them later if witnesses are no longer able to cooperate. Cooperation includes travel expenses and accommodations to be arranged and financed by their agency. c. Reliability: A federal officer must be able to withstand the strict scrutiny required of any law enforcement witness in a criminal case5. State Investigation: If, after considering the factors outlined above, the investigating agency and the Marion County District Attorney decide to continue a local law enforcement investigation, cases involving federal employees should be investigated in accordance with existing protocols. While no special considerations will be granted to federal professionals, nothing in this section prohibits consideration of the impact of federal immunity, removal, supremacy clause, or other legal principles that may affect the investigation and availability of state prosecution. District Attorney Review: Prior to filing criminal charges, the District Attorney’s Office will review all the above circumstances together with considerations regarding fundamental principles of deterrence and public safety, the seriousness of the criminal offense, impact on the victim(s) as well as on our local community, and the principles of fundamental fairness and justice that accompany all charging decisions. The District Attorney will initiate charges only when all these factors justify proceeding. *If there are concerns or information about possible actions related to federal matters, the Oregon AG has provided the following reporting repository: Federal Oversight and Accountability Reporting Form 5 See OEC 609, Propensity for Dishonesty, Brady requirements, etc. ---PAGE BREAK--- NOTICE: We will undergo maintenance from Friday January 16, 2026, through Sunday January 18, 2026. Some resources will still be available during this maintenance. Thank you for your patience. Attorney General Dan Rayfield Announces Investigation into Shooting Involving Federal Agents in Portland • Posted in January 8, 2026 Media Release Attorney General Dan Rayfield today announced that the Oregon Department of Justice is opening a formal investigation into an incident in Portland in which two people were shot and injured during an encounter with federal agents. “We have been clear about our concerns with excessive use of force by federal agents in Portland and nationally. We have also been clear about our intent to investigate circumstances involving federal agents to ensure they are accountable to acting within the scope of their official duties.” said Attorney General Rayfield. “Today’s incident only heightens the need for transparency and accountability. Our office will take every step necessary to ensure that the rights and security of Oregonians are protected.” The investigation will look into whether any federal officer acted outside the scope of their lawful authority and will include witness interviews, video evidence, and other relevant materials. If evidence of criminal conduct is found cases may be referred to the Multnomah County District Attorney for potential prosecution. This investigation follows a November letter sent by Attorney General Rayfield, along with Multnomah County District Attorney Nathan Vasquez, Washington County District Attorney Kevin Barton, and Clackamas County District Attorney John Wentworth, which raised urgent concerns about a pattern of excessive force by federal officers operating in Oregon. The letter documented multiple incidents in which federal officers used disproportionate force, including munitions striking law enforcement personnel and actions that endangered residents and bystanders. The letter called on federal agencies to halt unlawful actions, improve training, investigate excessive-force complaints, and cooperate fully with state oversight. (/media) OREGON DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (/MEDIA) (/media) Media