What extent does the federalization of state crimes cut across traditional values as represented in the crime control and due process models?

To me, federalization of state crimes does not cut across any of
the values that Packer identifies as common to both of his models.  Federalization may violate
other constitutional values, but it does not violate the values that Packer says both models
adhere to.

Let me show why this is so by listing the values that are
(to Packer) common to both models:

1. Government must define
   what is criminal and stick to it -- no ex post facto
   laws.


2. Government officials must not let accused criminals go just
   on a whim -- people who act in certain ways must be at least brought to
   trial.


3. There are limits on what government can do -- things like
   the 4th Amendment.  America is not a police state where the authorities can just do whatever they
   want.


4. Accused people get their "day in court" with an attorney in
   an adversarial system.

If you look at this list, you
will see that none of the 4 values is violated by federalization per se.  The mere fact that the
federal government, not a state, is prosectuing a crime does not go against any of these
values.

For whatever reason, I can't make this show up in the links,
but here is a link to a Word version of Packer's article in which he lays out these
values:

www.hhs.csus.edu/.../Packer%20-%20Two%20Models%20of%20the%20Criminal%20Process.doc

If
that doesn't work, you can Google "packer two models of the criminal process" and get this same
link yourself.