It is entirely possible the MOU has been changed again but not posted on the website. The FBI Police operate under the authority granted by the Federal Protective Service, and their MOU/MOA states they have expanded jurisdiction within 300 feet of any federal property.

Another possibility is that the vehicle committed a traffic offense that raises it above a citation into criminal territory. If that's the case, Federal Law Enforcement Officers may choose to use the Assimilative Crimes Act to stop a person or vehicle and effect an arrest for an equivalent State (or in this case District) crime and have it tried in Federal Court.

The FBI's MOU was slightly expanded in 2012 per the map on the bottom of the page you shared: https://mpdc.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/mpdc/publication/attachments/fbi_expanded_jurisdiction_boundary.pdf

If the original traffic infraction occurred within the boundaries and the FBI Police witnessed it, the actual location of the stop doesn't really matter. It's likely the person that was pulled over did something egregious the block or so just before and an FBI Police Officer witnessed it and pulled them over as they crossed the invisible jurisdiction line.

> though in common usage the word 'crimes' is made to denote such offenses as are of a deeper and more atrocious dye; while smaller faults and omissions of less consequence are comprised under the gentler name 'misdemeanors'

It.. doesn't support your view, at all?

The text explains that "Crimes" in the context of 1787 meant crimes above what we now call Misdemeanors. There's a reason section 4 of Article 2 specifies "crimes and misdemeanors" for which conviction would remove a President and other Executive Officers from power.

You obviously haven't read the case opinion or done any research at all on the historical context of the word "crime."

Page 59/60 goes in depth into the historical definition of the word "crime" and how it did not include misdemeanors in how we now classify things. The founders literally had two words for what we know today as "crime." The Supreme Court didn't just pull shit out of nowhere in their decision, they viewed it in the historical context of the language.

That's cool and all that you think you know better than the 120+ years of experience that sits on the Supreme Court bench.. but you could at least read the Opinion from the case and see that prior cases dating back pre-1890 long established the definition of "petty" offenses not being covered by the Constitution.

It's easy for you to sit there today and say "the Constitution is written plainly!" but it is a whole other thing to look at the context and realize that words had different meanings in 1787. Crime and punishment were so different back then, and even the concept of an organized Police Department wasn't really established yet at the time.

The context matters.