When some Calguns.net folks went looking through PACER, this story didn't check out FYI.

-Gene

timestamp is from last feb, too. i dunno. it's definitely a story i'd like to hear more often, anyways.

I'm hitting Google. Starting to sound like an urban legend, albeit one growing from a real case, involving a settlement. Links to the Wyoming District are dead, since they don't keep older documents online. Here's a couple interesting things, but not what you'd call legally authoritative:

Wyoming Sheriff thread is bogus

This site says the case is actually 2:1996cv00099, which also comes up with a lot of unhelpful sites in a general we search, but I was able to at least find a docket listing.

Overall, in a general web search, other than the usual suspects crowing about the story. Nothing at Findlaw either.

I assume you legal eagles have resources to find archives which would be actually illuminating.

Here is a law student's analysis from Calguns:

"I call BS. I looked up the case number from the original article on PACER, not only was it not a 2006 case (it closed in 1997), but it had 0 substantive orders from the judge. Also, it had nothing to do with a dispute between federal officers and the sheriff, but rather was a bunch of illegal immigrants suing the INS and the Sheriff for alleged constitutional violations during deportation raid they coordinated together. Thinking maybe the case number was wrong, I also searched for Sheriff Mattis and no other case involves a federal party or anything remotely resembling the article. Lastly, the whole point of the article is BS, and directly contradicts the supremacy clause. Firstly, the 10th amendment has nothing to do with the relationship between a state officer and the local Sheriff. Also, the supremacy clause allows feds to do go wherever public property they want in the US. The local Sheriff has no authority to ban anyone from his county, and you have to be pretty naive to believe he can ban Federal officials." - mymonkeyman on CGN

-Gene

you naysayers would be wrong. this is a true story and ended as reported. Several Wy. sheriffs got together and decided to stop the abuses by federal agencies of Wy. citizens. They did win.

As you would expect, this has been kept as quiet as possible by the federal powers that be and the media that is in their pocket.

This is not a new concept. I've been preaching it for more than 30 years, and I didn't invent it. It goes back more than 200 years.

If you can't find it in your research, that means two things. You weren't paying attention when this actually happened a few years ago, (for whatever reason,hell some of you may have been in grade school wondering about the new bumps on Mary's chest), or it has been hidden well from easy access. However it does exist and it did happen. Keep researching, look deeper.

I suggest old newspaper archives from the area. I do remember it, so don't tell me it didn't happen. I seriously doubt it can be found on any official site. This is not the kind of thing they want to get around.

I wish I could give you a timeline, but unfortunately I have spent my whole life on Indian time, and have no concept of calendars and clocks unless I wrote something about it that I can find.

I searched the case number on LoisLaw. No hits. It's bogus.

Straightarrow:

Since you believe G. Hoffman is wrong, why don't you call the Sheriff's office to confirm? I also looked for information to confirm the story and came up blank. Moreover, even if the story was true, decisions by District Courts have no precedential value (i.e., the decision in the story is not binding on any other court). Furthermore, the Federal Government would almost certainly have appealled such a decision, and can find no record of such an appeal. Despite the fact that I think the story is a myth, I would like to be proved wrong. Please call the Sheriff's office to confirm the story.

Case: Castaneda v. USA
Case No: 2:1996cv00099 Wyoming District Court, Casper
Filed: 10th May 1996
Dismissed: 29th April 1997 - Dismissed as a result of motions submitted jointly by all the parties to the suit
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights

This was a civil case arising out of an alleged entry into an apartment by law enforcement officials in June of 1993. The Plaintiffs, who were staying in the apartment, filed a Civil Rights action against the United States, unnamed INS agents, Big Horn County, the County Sheriff, and unnamed Sheriff's deputies who assisted INS in the night time raid.

William F. Downes - Chief Judge, District of Wyoming has been quoted as follows:

“We have learned that it has been reported, erroneously, that the court made a legal ruling in the Castaneda case regarding the authority of federal law enforcement officials to conduct operations in the County. There was no such ruling or decision. Instead, the court simply granted a motion, submitted jointly by all the parties, to dismiss the case because the parties had settled.”

There are indications that a policy agreement may have been established between the Sheriff’s dept and the INS in which the feds agreed to at least check with the S.O. before initiating any enforcement actions in Big Horn County. This was allegedly a point the plaintiffs (Castaneda) insisted upon during the settlement conference held before Magistrate Judge Beaman on 6 Mar 97. Apparently, the Big Horn County Sheriff’s Department was already aware of the feds’ activities as far as Castaneda was concerned as sheriff’s deputies were alleged by Castaneda to have been involved in the raid upon the apartment.

The idea of local law enforcement being able to bar federal agencies from conducting enforcement activities appears to be a case of wishful thinking. Officers of local jurisdictions may be able to refuse to cooperate with the feds but may also run the danger of becoming unwilling guests of the BOP if the DOJ decides their lack of cooperation slides over into obstruction of justice.

Case: Castaneda v. USA
Case No: 2:1996cv00099 Wyoming District Court, Casper
Filed: 10th May 1996
Dismissed: 29th April 1997 - Dismissed as a result of motions submitted jointly by all the parties to the suit
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights

This was a civil case arising out of an alleged entry into an apartment by law enforcement officials in June of 1993. The Plaintiffs, who were staying in the apartment, filed a Civil Rights action against the United States, unnamed INS agents, Big Horn County, the County Sheriff, and unnamed Sheriff's deputies who assisted INS in the night time raid.

William F. Downes - Chief Judge, District of Wyoming has been quoted as follows:

“We have learned that it has been reported, erroneously, that the court made a legal ruling in the Castaneda case regarding the authority of federal law enforcement officials to conduct operations in the County. There was no such ruling or decision. Instead, the court simply granted a motion, submitted jointly by all the parties, to dismiss the case because the parties had settled.”

There are indications that a policy agreement may have been established between the Sheriff’s dept and the INS in which the feds agreed to at least check with the S.O. before initiating any enforcement actions in Big Horn County. This was allegedly a point the plaintiffs (Castaneda) insisted upon during the settlement conference held before Magistrate Judge Beaman on 6 Mar 97. Apparently, the Big Horn County Sheriff’s Department was already aware of the feds’ activities as far as Castaneda was concerned as sheriff’s deputies were alleged by Castaneda to have been involved in the raid upon the apartment.

The idea of local law enforcement being able to bar federal agencies from conducting enforcement activities appears to be a case of wishful thinking. Officers of local jurisdictions may be able to refuse to cooperate with the feds but may also run the danger of becoming unwilling guests of the BOP if the DOJ decides their lack of cooperation slides over into obstruction of justice.