This situation comes down to what exactly does and does not constitute a
condominium. In the beginning of this discussion, I said that it is "something
of a condominium."
First: The Bi-state Criminal Justice Center Compact creates what can be
described as a condominium of non-exclusive concurrent jurisdictions, but it
also speaks of the "geographical boundary" and "geographical areas" of the
states within the center--even as it negates all practical effects of the same.
To quote the compact, each state "hereby relinquishes exclusive jurisdiction
over the portion of the plant and facility of the Bi-State Criminal Justice
Center which is located within the geographical boundary of the said state, [and
they] hereby recognize the existence of concurrent jurisdiction over the
geographical areas of both states which are within the Bi-State Criminal Justice
Center."
Second: I was under the impression (from the clear wording of the US
Constitution in the last clause of Article 1, section 10) that all interstate
compacts required the consent of the Congress. I had not figured on the Supreme
Court's 1893 decision otherwise in Virginia v. Tennessee (148 U.S. 503), that
only some interstate compacts require the consent of Congress. Section 10 of
the BCJC Compact says that it is effective when enacted into law by both states.
No mention is made of the Congress.
Third: In the case of Wyatt v. State (
http://tinyurl.com/u3za ), the Court of
Criminal Appeals of Texas dealt with some of these questions. Wyatt was a
corrections officer for Bowie County, Texas, who raped and killed a little boy
in Texas in 1997. While voluntarily within the BCJC, he was questioned by Texas
authorities in the Arkansas portion of the building, where he confessed and was
arrested. On appeal, his lawyer sought to have the confession and arrest
suppressed because they had occurred in Arkansas and to have the statutes
authorizing Texas jurisdiction throughout the building declared unconstitutional
for lack of Congressional consent to change the state boundary. The court
upheld Wyatt's conviction and sentence to death by lethal injection, stating
that the laws clearly authorized Texas jurisdiction throughout the building, but
that "The language of the statute does not attempt to alter the state borders."
So, the BCJC might properly be called a jurisdictional condominium, but not a
geographical condominium--if such a distinction could be admitted. While this
might leave us without any new tripoints in the strictest sense, there are still
tripoints at the junctions of exclusive Arkansas jurisdiction, exclusive Texas
jurisdiction, and the concurrent jurisdiction of both. However imperfect the
BCJC might be as a condominium, it is still unique in this country.
Lowell G. McManus
Leesville, Louisiana, USA
----- Original Message -----
From: "acroorca2002" <orc@...>
To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 9:44 AM
Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Boundaries through urban areas
> many thanxxx
> & comments intertwingled
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
> <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> > Attached (and also at www.mexlist.com/bp/bcjc.jpg ) is an aerial
> photo map that
> > I have made to show the Bi-state Criminal Justice Center
> condominium.
> >
> > The placement of the boundary around the condominium is predicated
> upon the
> > statement in the compact that it embodies "the plant and
> facilities" of the
> > BCJC. My interpretation is that this includes the property on
> which the
> > building is situated.
>
> good
> i agree
> & this means the tripoints can be made without having to even visit
> the er plant
>
> From my on-site observations, that property appears to be
> > three-quarters of the city block, the remaining quarter being
> occupied by a
> > tall, slim, boarded-up old hotel building. The divided building
> across Front
> > Street south of the BCJC is the railroad station. North of the
> BCJC, the
> > boundary is shown correctly as it crosses the corner of the
> sidewalks at the
> > corner of Pine and Broad Streets.
> >
> > Before the BCJC was built, State Line Avenue continued through the
> block on
> > which it sits--even with the corner of the block to the north
> jutting into it as
> > it does. State Line Avenue ended into Front Street in front of the
> railroad
> > station by the east corner of the tall old hotel. The main
> uncertainty in my
> > mind is whether the right-of-way of the former State Line Avenue
> might have been
> > included in the BCJC property. If that is the case, then the
> boundary between
> > Arkansas and the condominium along the edge of Front Street would
> extend all the
> > way to the ARTX boundary near the corner of the tall old hotel
> instead of
> > jutting northwestward to an acute angle. It would probably take a
> search of
> > local cadastral records to answer this question and definitively
> place the
> > tripoint.
>
> both tripoints might however be probed for in the street first
> just to see what factors might be at issue
>
> but before that
> i would like to find out whether the federal congress has ever
> ratified this agreement
>
> because if not
> & insofar as the compact alters the character & location of the state
> line
> then it is not yet constitutionally legal
>
> in which case the artx state line has never really legally moved an
> inch
> nor opened up to admit this common territory in its midst
> nor produced in fact these arartxtxn & arartxtxs condo tripoints
>
>
> Therefore, my map is an approximation.
> >
> > Lowell G. McManus
> > Leesville, Louisiana, USA