Criminal

Part II of Billings Gazette Special Report on Tribal Sovereignty

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

From the Billings Gazette (Part I is here):

Three days a week, a dozen or so defendants in criminal cases appear before a Crow Tribal Court judge.

They could be charged with anything from a traffic violation to murder, and they could be there for a five-minute guilty plea or a weeklong trial. It’s all in the mix of a court schedule that begins at 8 a.m. and sometimes stretches into the evening.

Last year, the court handled 3,410 criminal cases, 335 civil cases, plus an intensive drug court and juvenile proceedings for a total of more than 4,200 cases, according to Associate Justice Julie Yarlott. During most of that year, the court was operating with just two judges. A second associate judge position is in the process of being filled.

Continue reading →

US v. Erickson — Denial of Motion to Suppress Based on Violation of Tribal Law

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials, in a case involving actions of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe’s law enforcement as arresting officers:

erickson-motion-to-suppress

us-response-to-erickson-motion-to-suppress

supplement-to-motion-to-suppress

us-supplemental-response

report-recommendation-us-v-erickson

rosebud-sioux-tribe-ordinance-91-05

Adam Walsh Act Declared Unconstitutional

Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

The district court for the Middle District of Florida dismissed an indictment under the Adam Walsh Act because Congress was unauthorized to enact the statute under the Interstate Commerce Clause. The case is United States v. Powers. Doubtful it would apply to Indian Country, but interesting nonetheless.

Update — Dec. 17, 2008 — This case, like one or two others, is likely an aberration. It is far more likely than not that the Adam Walsh Act is constitutional. For more information, see this website.

powers-motion-to-dismiss-indictment

us-response-to-powers-motion

us-v-powers-dct-opinion

Ninth Circuit Affirms Constitutionality of Bald Eagle Protection Act

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

In consolidated cases, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the constitutionality of prosecuting American Indians under the Bald and Golden Eagles Protection Act, rejecting a challenge under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. A similar case is under review by the Tenth Circuit (United States v. Friday).

The Ninth Circuit applied a 2003 precedent, United States v. Antoine, upholding the law under similar facts. Here are the materials.

us-v-antoine-ca9-2003

vasquez-ramos-opening-brief

Continue reading →

Cornelius v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue – Authority of Tribal Law Enforcement Off-Reservation

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

This case concerns a non-Indian’s driver license, which was suspended after failing a sobriety test at a checkpoint controlled jointly by state and tribal law enforcement, just outside the border of the Prairie Band Potawatomi reservation. Unluckily for the appellant, the state and the tribe had a law enforcement cooperative agreement.

Here is the opinion.

Here are the briefs:

appellant-brief-cornelius

appellee-brief-kansas

American Indians and the Death Penalty

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

This site includes links to scholarship on the application of the death penalty to American Indians throughout American history (and earlier).

Native Americans and the Death Penalty

Thanks to Patrick O’Donnell.

Bob v. United States – Tort Claim Against Oglala Sioux Tribe Officers

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

The district court for the District of South Dakota dismissed this claim of police brutality by Oglala Sioux Tribe officers against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Turns out, the officers were not cross-deputized by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and therefore not law enforcement officers under the Act. Here are the materials:

Complaint

US Motion to Dismiss

Opposition to Motion to Dismiss

US Reply

DCT Order Dismissing Claim

Federal Plea Deal with Makah Whalers Falls Apart

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

From the Seattle Times:

TACOMA — A plea agreement expected from five Makah whalers this afternoon fell apart when the whalers realized that the U.S. government planned to restrict their future whale hunts.

Federal authorities expected the five tribal members who killed a gray whale during an unlicensed hunt last September to sign off on the plea — which would have kept the whalers from serving jail time.

Because they declined to take the plea deal, the whalers still face up to one year in custody, a $100,000 fine, up to five years of probation and possible community service. The five men will return to court Thursday with either a new plea agreement worked out or to make plans for the case to go to trial.

Continue reading →

Cross-Deputization Concerns in Manistee

Nick Reo

Glenn Zaring, Communications Director of the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, recently wrote an article for the Ludington Daily News regarding the reluctance of Manistee County to cross-deputize and work cooperatively with LRB law enforcement. He poses some important questions in the article that highlight some of the divisive issues in the region

http://www.ludingtondailynews.com/news.php?story_id=39440#comments

EXCERPT: 

For years now, the controversy over cross-deputization of tribal police officers in Michigan has been swirling here in Manistee County. Not in other areas, just here! The 11 other tribes in Michigan have good relations with their local law enforcement authorities and are cross-deputized. They are also integral components of the law enforcement picture protecting and serving all of their counties’ residents. County prosecutors and sheriffs welcome the assistance of tribal law enforcement officers in maintaining law and order and defraying the costs that would otherwise be borne exclusively by county taxpayers.

Why is Manistee County so far out of the mainstream? Why has Manistee County ignored the wishes of the U.S. Attorney General’s office to cross-deputize the officers of the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians? Why does the county believe the accepted and successful practice across the state of cross-deputizing tribal officers cannot work here? Why do the Manistee County Commissioners and sheriff want to ignore the opportunity to expand the abilities of law enforcement to serve all of the county residents — at no cost to the county?

Primeaux v. Dooley – Preemptory Striking of Indian Jurors

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion from the South Dakota Supreme Court.

Like all the other cases on this subject, the court held that striking American Indians from the juror pool does not create enough racial disparity to justify reversal of a conviction of an American Indian. If Indians are too small a percentage of the general population in South Dakota, where would there ever be a violation?