Here is the news coverage.
Here are the materials:
Here is the news coverage.
Here are the materials:
Here:
ABA Final Tribal Jurisdiction – VAWA reauthorization resolution as approved 8-7-2012
The materials are here on the ABA site as well:
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.
Here is the opinion:
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.
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
Lower Sioux Motion for Summary J
Hester Opposition to Lower Sioux Motion
Here is the announcement from the White House.
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.
Three of these cases just today!
Here are the materials in United States v. Wilson:
Wilson DCT Order 2 [motion to reconsider]
Here are the materials in State v. Ferbuson (Ottawa Co. Dist. Ct.):
Here is the opinion in State v. Garrison (Shohomish Co. Dist. Ct.):
Included in the file as an appendix is the cross-dep agreement between Tulalip Tribes and Snohomish County.
You must be logged in to post a comment.