Summary:<p>The 6th amendment requires a jury pool to be selected from the state/district where a crime is committed. The part of Yellowstone National Park which is in the state of Idaho has no residents, and therefore no potential jury candidates. This creates a loophole which could possibly allow someone to commit a serious crime that could not be prosecuted.<p>There are potential strategies to close the loophole: residents moving into the area after a crime is committed, interpreting the clause broadly enough to allow residents from neighboring "similar areas" to qualify, prosecuting lesser crimes that don't require jury trials, prosecuting related crimes (such as "conspiracy to X") that took place outside of the area, or even vigilante justice.<p>See also <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicinage_Clause#The_perfect_crime.3F" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicinage_Clause#The_perfect_cri...</a>
This "loophole" was even a plot device in a recent book, "Free Fire" by CJ Box. <a href="http://www.cjbox.net/books/free-fire" rel="nofollow">http://www.cjbox.net/books/free-fire</a>
Given this is Hacker News it is interesting to consider 'softer crimes' than murder which even the threat of might be able to drive legislative change. It would seem that, if permits could be granted, it would make a great place for a "no rules" security camp-con. Look at DEFCON as an example. They have a wireless CTF; however, certain hacking techniques are off limits if one is concerned about being charged with a felony. As an example, signal jamming to downgrade connections to weaker ones which have implemented broken protocols or jamming and redirecting GPS signals:<p>Title 18, Section 1362 - prohibits willful or malicious interference to US government communications; subjects the operator to possible fines, imprisonment, or both (18 U.S.C. § 1362)<p>Title 18, Section 1367(a) - prohibits intentional or malicious interference to satellite communications; subjects the operator to possible fines, imprisonment, or both (18 U.S.C. § 1367(a))<p>While there would likely be very low interest from law enforcement for local signal jamming against competitors in a wireless CTF, things could get interesting if someone attempted to hijack or jam satellite uplinks from that location. Surely such antics, even without an arrest would spur more immediacy in closing the loophole?
The actual paper:<p><a href="http://passthebarexam.com/articles/SSRN-id691642.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://passthebarexam.com/articles/SSRN-id691642.pdf</a>
This is one of those wonderful "theory meets practice" issues. US history is full of people arguing on similar technicalities and courts universally reject them as such.<p>There is zero chance you could commit a semi-major or major crime there and get away with it, anymore than you can quash a warrant and exclude evidence because they mis-spelled your name on the warrant application.<p>Even if, by some miracle, you managed to "get away with it", after years in solitary confinement, a $1000000+ legal bill, and a completely ruined life... congrats, you're the one and only person to ever manage it because your case would immediately spur political efforts to close the loophole.<p>The bottom line: this just isn't an issue in reality.
Alternate source of explanation- <a href="http://loststates.blogspot.com/2011/08/loophole-landwhere-crimes-cant-be.html?m=1" rel="nofollow">http://loststates.blogspot.com/2011/08/loophole-landwhere-cr...</a><p>Key point is that it's a district with zero population, so there's no jury pool.