If the instances were partitioned between those three jurisdictions, then it isn't really an example of avoiding double jeopardy limitations by changing jurisdiction.
Right, I guess what I'm getting at is that neither case (the one in the article and the one I mentioned) was about Double Jeopardy because the police could partition the crimes to different jurisdictions.
Legalistically, its correct but ethically it means that police can try you multiple times so long as they narrow the jurisdiction on the first attempts. For instance, a car chase that crosses multi-jurisdictions can result in multiple trials (and consecutive sentences) even though its really just one offense.
