Updated Materials in Poulson v. Ute Indian Tribe (State Judge Suit to Enjoin Tribal Court Proceedings)

Here are updated materials:

Ute Indian Tribe Motion to Dismiss

Pro Se Defendants Motion to Dismiss

Pro Se Defendants Removal and Remand Brief

Pro Se Defendants Suppmental Motion on Retaliation

Poulson Second Omnibus Response

The complaint and tribal court materials are here.

California SCT Decides Case involving Interaction between ICWA and Juvenile Delinquency Context

Here is the opinion:

In re W.B.

An excerpt:

Passed in 1978, the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) (ICWA, or the Act) formalizes federal policy relating to the placement of Indian children outside the family home. State courts presiding over adoption, guardianship, and dependency matters have become familiar with the many requirements of this federal law. Historically, however, ICWA provisions have not been applied in the juvenile delinquency context because ICWA includes an express exemption for placements “based upon an act which, if committed by an adult, would be deemed a crime.” (25 U.S.C. § 1903(1).) The minor argues state legislation has expanded ICWA to delinquency proceedings under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602.1 The Courts of Appeal have considered the question with varying results. Here, we determine the federally required scope of ICWA in juvenile delinquency proceedings and whether our Legislature has expanded those requirements. Consistent with the federal statutes, we hold that California law requires the court to inquire about a child’s Indian status at the outset of all juvenile proceedings, but that ICWA’s additional procedures are not required in most delinquency cases. A delinquency court must ensure that notice is given and other ICWA procedures are complied with only when (1) exercising “dual status” jurisdiction over an Indian child (see post, at pp. 9-11); (2) placing an Indian child outside the family home for committing a “status offense” (§§ 601-602; see post, at p. 5); or (3) placing an Indian child initially detained for “criminal conduct” (§ 602; see post, at pp. 5-6) outside the family home for reasons based entirely on harmful conditions in the home. In this narrow third category, ICWA notice is required when the  delinquency court sets a permanency planning hearing to terminate parental rights, or when the court contemplates ordering the ward placed in foster care and announces on the record that the placement is based entirely on abuse or neglect in the family home and not on the ward‟s delinquent conduct. Without a clear announcement from the court to the contrary, it will be presumed that a placement of a section 602 ward is based on the ward‟s delinquent conduct, rather than conditions in the home, and thus not subject to ICWA.

Federal Court Dismisses Section 1983 Claim against Lower Sioux Tribal Police in Arrest of Tribal Member

Here are the materials in Hester v. Redwood County (D. Minn.):

Order Dismissing Action 8 6 2012

Redwood County Motion to Dismiss

Hester Opposition to Redwood County Motion

Redwood County Reply

Lower Sioux Motion for Summary J

Hester Opposition to Lower Sioux Motion

Lower Sioux Reply

 

Two Year Anniversary of TLOA

Here is the announcement from the White House.

Idaho Court of Appeals Decides PL 280 Case

Here is the opinion in Lawyer v. State.

An excerpt:

In his application, Lawyer alleged that his counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to change venue. Specifically, he asserted the crime he was convicted of occurred on the Nez Perce Indian Reservation, that he is a member of the Nez Perce Tribe, and the State lacked jurisdiction to prosecute him. On appeal, he appears to renew this argument, stating that his trial and appellate counsel were “not aware and sensitive to Tribal Court Jurisdiction.” Pursuant to I.C. § 67-5101, the State of Idaho has jurisdiction for the criminal enforcement of state laws concerning various matters arising in Indian country, including “[o]peration and management of motor vehicles upon highways and roads maintained by the county or state.” Idaho courts have previously held that “the State of Idaho has authority to enforce the motor vehicle laws of this state in Indian Country pursuant to the consent provided in Public Law 280 and as implemented by the Idaho Legislature in I.C. § 67-5101.” State v. Beasley, 146 Idaho 594, 597, 199 P.3d 771, 774 (Ct. App. 2008). It is undisputed that Lawyer was stopped and arrested while driving on State Highway 12 on the Nez Perce Indian Reservation. Therefore, Lawyer was driving on a state highway, over which the State of Idaho has expressly assumed jurisdiction.

 

Second Circuit Materials in Federal Prosecution Dismissed Where Tribal Police Engaged in Off-Rez Conduct

Three of these cases just today!

Here are the materials in United States v. Wilson:

Wilson DCT Order 1

Wilson DCT Order 2 [motion to reconsider]

United States Opening Brief

St. Regis Mohawk Amicus Brief

Wilson Brief

United States Reply Brief

Okla. v. Ferbuson: Suppression of Evidence and Invalidation of Tribal Cross-Dep for Off-Rez Police Activity

Here are the materials in State v. Ferbuson (Ottawa Co. Dist. Ct.):

2012-07-16 Order Affirming

Order Granting Mot to Suppress 6 22 12

Wash. v. Garrison: Off-Rez Breath Test Administered by Tribal Officer an Unauthorized Search

Here is the opinion in State v. Garrison (Shohomish Co. Dist. Ct.):

State v Garrison

Included in the file as an appendix is the cross-dep agreement between Tulalip Tribes and Snohomish County.

Tenth Circuit Affirms Sentence in Ute Mountain Assault; Tennis Shoes as Weapon

Here is today’s opinion in United States v. Hatch.

Opinion in United States v. Morrison

We posted about the lower court decision here.

Of the many arguments that the parties have raised, only two warrant extended 11 discussion. The first is the government’s contention that the district court erred in vacating Morrison’s conspiracy conviction on the ground of vagueness. The second is Morrison’s claim that the CCTA was inapplicable to him given New York’s “forbearance policy,” under which the State refrained from collecting taxes on cigarette sales transacted on Native American reservations. According to Morrison, this forbearance policy barred his conviction under the CCTA because that statute provides that, in order for a federal prosecution to lie, the state in which the allegedly contraband cigarettes are found must “require” tax stamps to be placed on  cigarettes. We reverse the district court’s order vacating Morrison’s RICO conspiracy conviction and reject all of Morrison’s challenges to his convictions.

Opinion

Appellant/Government’s Brief
Defendant/Appellee Brief
Government’s Response & Reply Brief
Appellee Reply Brief