Here are the materials in Archambault v. United States (D.S.D.):
Northern Cheyenne Tribe Sues Interior over Reservation Policing
Here is the complaint in Northern Cheyenne Tribe v. United States (D. Mont.):
D.C. Federal Court Rejects FBI Reasons for Not Acknowledging Cayuga Nation Police
Here are the materials in Cayuga Nation v. United States (D.D.C.):
Ninth Circuit Briefs in Section 1983 Suit against Warm Springs Tribal Police
Here are the briefs in Weaver v. Gregory:
Lower court materials here.
Oklahoma Federal Court Declines to Suppress Gun Evidence Obtained by Tribal Police at Comanche Casino
Here are the relevant materials in United States v. Portillo (W.D. Okla.):
Minnesota Federal Court Dismissed Civil Rights Case against White Earth Nation Police
Here are the materials in Howard v. Weidemann (D. Minn.):
Texas Appellate Court Suppresses Evidence Acquired by Tribal Police because of State’s Failure to Prove Tribe Had Power to Detain under Cooley
Here are the materials in State of Texas v. Astorga (Tex. Ct. App. El Paso):
Liz Reese Commentary on Cooley Decision
From SCOTUSBlog, here is “Court unanimously holds that Indian tribes retain the inherent power to police non-Indians.”
Decision and materials here.
SCOTUS Reverses in United States v. Cooley
Here is the unanimous opinion from Justice Breyer.
The question presented is whether an Indian tribe’s police officer has authority to detain temporarily and to search a non-Indian on a public right-of-way that runs through an Indian reservation. The search and detention, we assume, took place based on a potential violation of state or federal law prior to the suspect’s transport to the proper nontribal authorities for prosecution.
We have previously noted that a tribe retains inherent sovereign authority to address “conduct [that] threatens or has some direct effect on . . . the health or welfare of the tribe.” Montana v. United States, 450 U. S. 544, 566 (1981); see also Strate v. A–1 Contractors, 520 U. S. 438, 456, n. 11 (1997). We believe this statement of law governs here. And we hold the tribal officer possesses the authority at issue.
More broadly, cross-deputization agreements are difficult to reach, and they often require negotiation between other authorities and the tribes over such matters as training, reciprocal authority to arrest, the “geographical reach of the agreements, the jurisdiction of the parties, liability of officers performing under the agreements, and sovereign immunity.” Fletcher, Fort, & Singel, Indian Country Law Enforcement and Cooperative Public Safety Agreements, 89 Mich. Bar J. 42, 44 (2010).
Here are the briefs and other background materials.
Federal Court Dismisses Tribal Police Officer Suit against Moapa Band
Here are the materials in Dutchover v. Moapa Band of Paiute Indians (D. Nev.):
You must be logged in to post a comment.