Legal Definitions - Petite policy

The Petite policy is an internal rule within the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) that generally prohibits federal prosecutors from pursuing a new federal case against an individual if that person has already been prosecuted by a state government, or by another federal prosecutor, for the same criminal acts. This policy aims to prevent individuals from facing multiple prosecutions and punishments for essentially the same conduct, even though the legal principle of "dual sovereignty" would technically allow both state and federal governments to prosecute separately.

The policy serves several important goals:

• To ensure that significant federal interests are properly addressed through federal prosecution when necessary.
• To protect individuals from the burden and expense of repeated legal proceedings for the same offense.
• To promote efficient use of government resources by avoiding redundant prosecutions.
• To encourage cooperation and coordination between federal and state law enforcement agencies.

While the Petite policy generally prevents successive prosecutions, there are specific, strict conditions under which a federal prosecution may still proceed after a prior state or federal case for the same acts:

• The prosecution must be specifically approved by a high-ranking official, typically an Assistant Attorney General.
• There must be a substantial federal interest that warrants the prosecution.
• The previous prosecution (state or federal) must have failed to adequately address or "vindicate" this substantial federal interest.
• There must be sufficient evidence available to support a conviction in the new federal case.

Examples:

• Bank Robbery: Imagine a person, Sarah, robs a bank within a state. She is caught, prosecuted by the state, and convicted of bank robbery under state law, receiving a significant prison sentence. Federal authorities also have jurisdiction over bank robbery. Under the Petite policy, the Department of Justice would generally decline to bring a separate federal bank robbery charge against Sarah for the same incident. The state prosecution has already addressed the criminal act, and there isn't a compelling, unaddressed federal interest that would justify a second prosecution. This prevents Sarah from being tried twice for essentially the same crime, even though both state and federal governments technically have the power to prosecute.

• Public Corruption and Interstate Racketeering: Consider a scenario where a local official, Mr. Henderson, is prosecuted by the state for bribery related to a zoning permit. The state prosecution focuses narrowly on the exchange of money for the permit and results in a conviction and a relatively light sentence. However, federal investigators uncover evidence that Mr. Henderson's bribery was part of a much larger, organized scheme involving multiple officials across several states, impacting federal funds and interstate commerce. In this situation, the Department of Justice might decide to override the Petite policy. The state prosecution, while successful, did not fully address the broader federal interests related to public corruption, interstate racketeering, and the integrity of federal programs. If approved by an Assistant Attorney General, and with sufficient evidence, federal charges could be brought to address these larger, unvindicated federal interests.

• Civil Rights Violations: Suppose a local police officer, Officer Miller, is involved in an incident where excessive force is used against a suspect, resulting in injury. Officer Miller is prosecuted by the state for assault and battery and is acquitted by a state jury. While the state prosecution addressed the physical assault, federal authorities might have a strong interest in investigating whether Officer Miller violated the suspect's civil rights under federal law (e.g., deprivation of rights under color of law). If the federal government determines that the state prosecution did not adequately address the federal interest in protecting civil liberties, and if there is sufficient evidence to prove a federal civil rights violation, the Department of Justice could potentially approve a federal prosecution against Officer Miller, overriding the Petite policy. This would be done to vindicate the federal interest in upholding constitutional rights, which might not have been the primary focus or fully addressed by the state's assault and battery charges.