New Mexico SCT Holds Cross-Deputized Tribal Officer Covered by New Mexico Tort Claims Act When Enforcing State Law

Here is the opinion in Loya v. Gutierrez.

An excerpt:

Given New Mexico’s highways that traverse both state and tribal lands, it is not uncommon that a tribal police officer patrolling those highways may be commissioned as a deputy county sheriff to arrest non-Indians and prosecute them in state court when they commit state traffic offenses on tribal land. In light of those recurring facts, we determine a county’s legal obligation when a non-Indian, arrested by a tribal officer and prosecuted in state court for state traffic offenses, sues the arresting tribal officer for federal civil rights violations. More particularly, we decide when the county has an obligation under the New Mexico Tort Claims Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 41–4–1 to –29 (1976, as amended through 2009) (NMTCA), to provide that tribal police officer with a legal defense in the federal civil rights action. The district court as well as our Court of Appeals found no such legal duty, in part because it concluded that the tribal officer was not a state public employee as defined in the NMTCA. We hold to the contrary, finding clear evidence in the text and purpose of the NMTCA requiring the county to defend the tribal officer, duly commissioned to act as a deputy county sheriff, under these circumstances endemic to the New Mexico experience.

We now have the briefs (5/21/15):

County Answer Brief

Gutierrez Brief in Chief

Gutierrez Reply Brief

Gutierrez Response to NMAC Brief

Gutierrez Supplemental Authorities Letter

NMAC Amicus Brief

Seattle U.’s VAWA Panel

CAM02623

Here’s a picture from Seattle University School of Law’s very inspiring VAWA Panel tonight. Left to right, the panelists were Molly Cohan, Sharon Jones Hayden, Alfred Urbina, and Ye-Ting Woo. Most of the handouts are here.

Among the many things I learned is that the one of the Pascua Yaqui Tribe’s first VAWA cases involved a same-sex couple. It was originally thought that this case might turn out to be the first tribal VAWA case to go through the federal habeas process and to eventually reach the Supreme Court, but the jury was uncertain as to whether the victim and defendant were in an intimate relationship as required by VAWA and so the defendant was acquitted. Given that the defendant and victim lived together and had a sexual relationship, this skepticism is troubling and, sadly, may reflect unconscious homophobia. There are still many positives, however. Despite the acquittal, the case helps shed light on a hidden problem–same-sex domestic violence is still a little-known and rarely mentioned phenomenon. Kudos to Pascua Yaqui for bringing the case. The prosecutorial response on its own was undoubtedly meaningful to the victim. And, given the jury’s acquittal, the case stands as a strong example of a tribal jury’s impartial treatment of a non-member.

There was also an important discussion of the holes in VAWA, including the lack of tribes’ ability under VAWA to prosecute crimes against children as well as stranger rape. Many of the more serious recent domestic violence crimes committed by nonmembers at both Tulalip and Pascua Yaqui involved crimes against children, but tribes cannot prosecute crimes against children under VAWA, so they must depend on the federal government (or the state in Public Law states) for prosecution of these crimes.

Bureau of Justice Statistics announces CTLEA solicitation

The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) has announced a solicitation:

Census of Tribal Law Enforcement Agencies (CTLEA) seeks applications to design and administer the collection, analysis, and dissemination of information on tribal law enforcement agencies, Village Public Safety Offices (VPSO) in Alaska, and law enforcement agencies operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). This will be the first BJS data collection targeted solely at information on tribal law enforcement agencies. The census will cover areas such as criminal jurisdiction, staffing, officer training, budgets, sources of funding, equipment, information systems, and services and support provided. CTLEA will also cover agreements, interactions, or participations of tribal agencies with federal, state, regional, and local agencies or other criminal justice organizations.

Visit BJS online for deadlines and eligibility requirements.

New Study Examining Indian Country Cases in the Federal Justice System

Here is “Examining Indian Country Cases in the Federal Justice System.”

An excerpt:

IC caseload increased from FY 2009–2011, for both juveniles and adults. The number of IC cases in the federal system increased by 13–18% between 2009 and 2011.3 This growth was seen across all stages of the justice system.

» On average, there were 2,045 IC suspects in criminal matters concluded by U.S. Attorneys each year from 2009–2011; this number increased by 14% over the three-year period, from 1,940 to 2,220 defendants in criminal matters concluded by U.S. Attorneys.

» There was an average of 1,300 IC defendants in criminal cases filed in the 48 federal districts with IC responsibility annually from 2009–2011; this number increased by 13% over the three-year period, from 1,235 to 1,395 defendants in cases filed in U.S. district court.

» From 2009 to 2011, the annual number of IC juvenile offenders processed in the federal system was relatively modest (totaling less than 100 each year), but increased by 20–25% over the three-year period. In comparison, the number of IC adult offenders in the federal system increased by 13– 18% during the period.

ABA Journal Article on the Implementation of VAWA’s Tribal Jurisdictional Provisions

Here is “Indian tribes are retaking jurisdiction over domestic violence on their own land.”

 

Alaska COA Rejects Yup’ik Free Exercise Defense to Criminal Prosecution for Salmon Fishing

Here is the opinion:

Phillip v. State

An excerpt:

In June 2012, the thirteen defendants in this case — all Yup’ik fishermen living a subsistence lifestyle — were charged with violating the Alaska Department of Fish and Game’s emergency orders restricting fishing for king salmon on the Kuskokwim River. The defendants moved for dismissal of the charges, asserting that their fishing for king salmon was religiously based activity, and that they were entitled to a religious exemption from the emergency orders under the free exercise clause of the Alaska Constitution.

Briefs are here.

Federal Defender Positioning United States v. Drapeau to Force Circuit Split over Use of Prior Uncounseled Tribal Court Convictions in Federal Sentencing Enhancement

Here are the briefs in United States v. Drapeau:

Drapeau Opening Brief

US Appellee Brief

Drapeau Reply

An excerpt:

Santana Drapeau was convicted of two counts of domestic assault by an habitual offender. In support of those charges the United States offered evidence of Drapeau’s three prior domestic abuse convictions in Crow Creek Tribal Court. In each instance Drapeau entered a no contest plea; in two of the three he did so without a lawyer. Over Drapeau’s objection under Federal Rules of Evidence 402, 403, and 404, the District Court admitted testimony about the underlying facts giving rise to those convictions. The District Court admitted that evidence based on a flawed understanding of whether the court or the jury decided what was a qualifying predicate offense under 18 U.S.C. § 117.
The District Court denied Drapeau’s motion for judgment of acquittal based on the use of no contest pleas obtained without counsel as qualifying predicate offenses. Drapeau acknowledges that this issue is controlled by United States v. Cavanaugh, 643 F.3d 592 (8th Cir. 2011), but presents it here in order to preserve it for review by this Court en banc and through petition for writ of certiorari.

We’ve commented on this issue extensively here and here. Right now, there is no circuit split as both the Eighth and Tenth Circuits have allowed use of the tribal court convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 117, a habitual offender statute. The cases are Cavanaugh and ShavanauxThere’s a Ninth Circuit case from the 1980s — United States v. Ant (882_F.2d_1389) — that is in disagreement with these cases but in a different context (confessions).

Ah, there is a clean split that I forgot about! United States v. Bryant in the CA9.

A case worthy of watching.

I wrote a short paper about these issues more generally a while back: Sovereign Comity

Ohio Appellate Court Rejects Claim to Immunity from State Regulation Alleged by Fake Indian

Here is the opinion in State v. O’Connor:

State v O’Connor

An excerpt:

Appellant urges that he (or his alter ego Noble Bull Horn Sirius O’Connor Bey) is a member of a Native American tribe called the Washitaw Nation of Muurs or Washitaw Tribe of Moors; that such tribe is not required to abide by the laws of Ohio; that he is permitted to drive in Ohio without a license as long he is not engaged in commercial driving; and that Arian S. O’Connor no longer exists as a person because a trust was formed that somehow involves the name or persona of Arian S. O’Connor. The alleged basis for all these beliefs is not clear from the record. At least two Federal Courts of Appeals have declared that the Washitaw Nation of Muurs is fictional and is not recognized by the United States Government. Bybee v. City of Paducah, 46 Fed.Appx. 735, 736 (6th Cir.2002); Sanders–Bey v. U.S., 267 Fed.Appx. 464, 466 (7th Cir.2008). The record is clear that Appellant, under the name Arian S. O’Connor, once had a driver’s license, that this license was suspended by the Youngstown Municipal Court, and that he is responsible for the offense of driving in Austintown on September 14, 2013, while his license was still suspended. Appellant’s attempt to obscure these basic facts by reference to a fictional Native American tribe is unpersuasive.

Public Radio Profile of DV Prosecutions at Pascua Yaqui

Here.

An excerpt:

FRED URBINA: In 19 of our cases, we had 18 children involved; the average age being around 4 years old. Some of them were assaulted. A lot of times it was the children that were calling to report these domestic violence incidents. 
MORALES: The Justice Department chose the Pascua Yaqui to pilot the program because they have state certified judges and lawyers and a brand new courthouse and jail. Police Chief Michael Valenzuela says the old jail was a two-bedroom house with a cage. 
M. VALENZUELA: In the past, if someone was in jail people could go outside and knock on the window and talk – yeah and they did. We’d have to shoo them away. It was not safe. We had people assaulted. 
MORALES: Now, thanks to federal stimulus money, they have a 65,000-square-foot justice complex. 


Washington SCT Decides State v. Shale, State Criminal Jurisdiction under PL280 over Nonmember Indians

Here is the opinion.

We posted briefs here.

Criticism of the reasoning behind the decision is coming fast and furious. Here is Anthony Broadman’s take.