Matthew L.M. Fletcher

A tribal law enforcement officer conducted a welfare check on Cooley, who had pulled over on a public highway where it crosses the Crow Reservation. It appeared to the officer that he was dealing with a non-Indian person. Soon thereafter, the encounter raised suspicion that Cooley was impaired and trafficking drugs and guns. He was detained and transferred to state custody. The district court suppressed the evidence from the stop based on a new Fourth Amendment test it derived from a tribal roadblock case. The district court held that the detention of Cooley and search of his vehicle violated the Fourth Amendment because, at the time the tribal officer realized Cooley was a non-Indian, it was not obvious that a state or federal crime had occurred. This new obviousness standard, the court held, is “notably higher” than probable cause.

UW Indian Law Symposium Sept. 7-8, 2017

July 18, 2017July 18, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher

30th Annual Indian Law Symposium Brochure - final_Page_1

Continue reading →

Federal Magistrate Recommends Section 1983 Suit against NY Oneida Police Proceed

July 17, 2017July 17, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials so far in Alexander v. New York (N.D. N.Y):

1 Complaint

4 Magistrate Order

Saginaw Chippewa Wins $8M Judgment Against Blue Cross for Hidden Fees

July 17, 2017July 17, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the order in Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (E.D. Mich.):

112 DCT Order

Federal Court Rejects San Juan County Remedial Maps, Orders Appointment of Special Master

July 17, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the order in Navajo Nation v. San Juan County (D. Utah):

397 DCT Opinion

An excerpt:

For the reasons below, San Juan County’s remedial plans fail to pass constitutional muster. Specifically, the court concludes race was the predominant factor in the development of District 3 of the School Board plan and Districts 1 and 2 of the County Commission plan. The County’s consideration of race requires strict scrutiny analysis of these districts. The court concludes the County has failed to satisfy strict scrutiny and, therefore, these districts are unconstitutional. The court will not adopt the County’s plans.