District of Montana

Here are the materials in Northern Arapaho Tribe v. LaCounte (D. Mont.):

An excerpt:

Negotiations concerning the operation of the two courts are ongoing. Interactions between the courts are, and will be, varied, continual, and context-specific. An order from the Court would prove an undesirable and perhaps unwieldy solution, particularly as opposed to a protocol negotiated by the parties. The Court especially is not the proper arbiter for the dispute while the parties continue to negotiate an MOU. An MOU would provide a set protocol that the Court could evaluate. The addition of an MOU to the factual record would aid the Court in coming to a more accurate, useful resolution to the issues presented.

Federal Court Suppresses Key Evidence Procured in Stop of Non-Indian by Tribal Police

February 13, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in United States v. Cooley (D. Mont.):

34 Motion to Suppress

41 Response

46 Reply

48 DCT Order

An excerpt:

Normally, under Bressi, Officer Saylor would be required to determine whether Cooley was non–Indian shortly after seizing him. 575 F.3d at 896. However, Officer Saylor determined Cooley was non–Indian when Cooley initially rolled his window down. Because Cooley was non–Indian, Officer Saylor had the authority to detain Cooley only if it was “apparent” Cooley had violated state or federal law. Bressi, 575 F.3d at 896. Officer Saylor’s observations up to that point fell considerably below an “apparent” state or federal law violation. When Officer Saylor seized Cooley, he had observed bloodshot and watery eyes, no odor of alcohol, possible but unconfirmed slurred speech, two semi-automatic rifles, wads of cash in Cooley’s pocket, and answers to questions that seemed untruthful to him. Officer Saylor had also heard Cooley explain that he pulled over because he was tired—an occurrence Officer Saylor acknowledged was common on Highway 212—and that the vehicle did not belong to him but instead to a Thomas Spang or Thomas Shoulderblade, one of whom Officer Saylor suspected of drug activity and one of whom was a former probation officer. None of Cooley’s actions, whether taken individually or cumulatively, establish an obvious state or federal law violation. The Court holds Officer Saylor exceeded the scope of his authority when he detained Cooley. All evidence obtained subsequent to Cooley’s seizure is suppressed because it is “fruit of the poisonous tree.” United States v. Ramirez–Sandoval, 872 F.2d 1392, 1395 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338, 341 (1939)).

Federal Court Rejects Challenge to Major Crimes Act Conviction, Defendant Argued Justice Thomas’ View of Indian Law

July 25, 2016July 25, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in United States v. Bearcomesout (D. Mont.):

An excerpt:

Citing decades of “schizophrenic” case law, Bearcomesout argues that the law has evolved such that the Northern Cheyenne Tribe’s concept of self-governance and sovereignty has disappeared. As a result, Bearcomesout argues that the Tribe is “subject to the external whim of the United States” which inherently extinguishes the tribe’s sovereignty. Because the Tribe is not sovereign, Bearcomesout argues that her prosecution in Northern Cheyenne Tribal Court was in essence a federal prosecution, in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause.

The obvious disagreement about the state of tribal sovereignty among Supreme Court justices contained in various dissents and concurrences over the years unquestionably creates uncertainty and doubt about whether the term “independent sovereign” still appropriately applies to Indian tribes. Nevertheless, as recently as June of this year, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the rule from Wheeler and its progeny that tribal sovereignty continues to exist, at least as it relates to Double Jeopardy….

Updated Materials in Suit over N. Arapaho from Wind River Joint Business Council

April 18, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the new materials in Northern Arapaho Tribe v. Lacounte (D. Mont.):

17-1 NAT Motion for PI

26 Shoshone Business Council Motion to Dismiss

28 Tribal Court Parties Motion to Intervene

40 Shoshone Business Council Response to 17

44 DOI Response to 28

45 Shoshone Business Council Response to 28

49 NAT Reply in Support of 17

50 DCT Order Denying Motion to Intervene

51 NAT Response to 26

Complaint here.

Northern Arapaho Tribe Sues BIA

February 24, 2016February 24, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is the complaint in Northern Arapaho Tribe v. Lacounte (D. Mont.):

1 Complaint

Federal Court Holds Tribe and Council are Subject to Discover in FTCA Suit against US

February 9, 2016February 8, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Matt v. United States (D. Mont.):

37 Motion to Quash

40-1 Opposition

42 Reply

45 DCT Order Granting Motion to Quash

An excerpt:

Matt seeks documents in the possession of the Fort Belknap Community Council. (Doc. 26-1 at 2.) In order to satisfy Matt’s request, Council would be required to take affirmative action to produce tribal documents. (Doc. 37 at 3.) If the Court granted Matt’s request the judgment would “interfere with public administration” of the tribe and would “compel [the sovereign] to act.” Maxwell, 708 F.3d at 1087-90. The recovery sought in this case would operate against the tribe. Matt should not be allowed to “circumvent tribal immunity” by addressing the Subpoena Duces Tecum to Mark Azure instead of to the tribe.

54 Motion to Compel

55 DCT Order

An excerpt:

The Council entered into an ISDEAA contract for the maintenance of the roads on Matt’s property. The Council and its tribal members should be deemed part of the BIA and subject to the FTCA. The Council and its tribal members should be subject to discovery related to the construction and maintenance of the roads covered by the ISDEAA contract.