Here is “Bridging the Jurisdictional Void: Cross-Deputization Agreements in Indian Country,” forthcoming in the Arizona State Law Journal.
Comment examines cross-deputization agreements in Indian Country, focusing on the relationship between tribes and state and local governments and the impact cross-deputization agreements have on enforcing criminal law in Indian Country. Section I examines the recent rise and evolution in tribal law enforcement powers. Section II briefly addresses the current ability of tribal police to enforce laws off of tribal land and the ability of state police to enforce laws on tribal land. Finally, Section III examines the benefits and issues involved with cross deputization agreements.
Here is the opinion in Loya v. Gutierrez.
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
Here are the materials in State v. Kostick (N.C. App.):
NC COA Opinion
Pursuant to the Tribal Code of the Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians and mutual compact agreements between the Tribe and other law enforcement agencies, the North Carolina Highway Patrol has authority to patrol and enforce the motor vehicle laws of North Carolina within the Qualla boundary of the Tribe, including authority to arrest non-Indians who commit criminal offenses on the Cherokee reservation. Our State courts have jurisdiction over the criminal offense of driving while impaired committed by a non-Indian, even where the offense and subsequent arrest occur within the Qualla boundary of the Cherokee reservation.
Indian Country Law Enforcement and Cooperative Public Safety Agreements
Michigan Bar Journal, Vol. 89, p. 42, February 2010, MSU Legal Studies Research Paper No. 08-02
Matthew L. M. Fletcher , Kathryn Fort and Wenona Singel