Opinion ID: 2721616
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: e., federal land policed by federal officers).

Text: 10 performance of a local function by federal officials . . . would transform the function into a „function of the United States‟ for the purpose of [§ 1-206.02].” (emphasis added)). The enforcement of traffic laws on a local street is not a “federal function.” See In re Crawley, supra, 978 A.2d at 610 (“The core and primary purpose of the [Home Rule Act] was to relieve Congress of the burden of legislating upon essentially local matters to the greatest extent possible, consistent with constitutional mandates.” (citations, internal quotation marks, and alterations omitted)); see also 18 DCMR § 2406 (authorizing the Director of Public Works to place “signs prohibiting parking” on local streets). Applying our narrow construction of “federal function” here, the United States Park Police officers‟ were effectuating a local function, and enforcement of the APO statute in relation to their performance of this local function did not interfere with “the integrity of the federal domain as it relates to administration of federal legislation having national implications.” Greater Wash. Cent. Labor Council, AFL-CIO, supra, 442 A.2d at 116. Specifically, Officers Blake and Hiott were enforcing District of Columbia traffic laws on a local street when they encountered appellant, namely, directing traffic flow on Madison Drive. The officers‟ instructions directing appellant to remove himself from the scene and to refrain from parking in restricted areas also concerned the enforcement of District 11 of Columbia traffic laws. See 18 DCMR § 2000.2 (“No person shall fail or refuse to comply with any lawful order or direction of any police officer, police cadet, or civilian crossing guard invested by law with authority to direct, control, or regulate traffic.”). Because the officers were effectuating purely local laws at the time of the incident, the APO charge did not violate the Home Rule Act. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying the motion to dismiss on this basis.