tribal police

Oregon Senate Passes Bill Temporarily Extending Tribal Police Authority

Adrea Korthase1 Comment

From Oregon Live:

SALEM, Ore. — The Oregon Senate has voted to temporarily give tribal police officers the same authority as non-tribal officers outside of reservations.

Senators approved the measure on a 19-9 vote on Monday, sending it to the state House.  The bill would give tribal officers limited authority off reservations, including the power to continue pursuing suspects who leave tribal land and to take action when a crime is committed in front of them.

They’ll also be allowed to assist non-tribal law enforcement if another agency requests it. Beginning in 2013, tribal officers would have full police authority through 2019.

The Oregon State Sheriffs’ Association opposes the measure because it would give tribal officers authority off the reservation but would continue to restrict authority of non-tribal officers on reservations

The Oregonian’s bill tracker for SB412 is here.

US Must Defend under Federal Tort Claim Act Tribal Police Officer Torts

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Garcia v. United States (D. Ariz.): Garcia v US

The court rejected the government’s motion for summary judgment, on grounds that the Navajo police officer (who struck a killed the plaintiff while driving under the influence) was working in the scope of work of a 638 contract.

 

News Article about the Failure of the Whiteriver Serial Rapist Investigation

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the article. Shocking story.

Gaming Finances Mismanagement Investigation at LTBB

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

From the Petoskey News-Review via Pechanga:

The Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians’ Gaming Board of Directors is under investigation by tribal police for alleged financial mismanagement.

In the April 2010 issue of “Odawa Trails,” the tribe’s monthly newsletter, tribal chairman Ken Harrington informs tribal citizens that, as a result of a recent ethics complaint filed by a tribal citizen, who was not named, the gaming board of directors is currently under investigation.

Harrington’s letter states: “Tribal police investigated, a warrant was issued and the tribal police acted on the warrant and seized the (gaming board’s) phones and computers.”

Harrington also reported in this letter, that after recently issuing an executive order to have the gaming board’s finances moved to the tribal government building, financial issues were discovered.

“It became apparent the (gaming board’s) budget was $20,000 over and overpayment of stipends became evident.”

Matthew Lesky, tribal prosecutor, confirmed to the New-Review Monday, during a phone interview, that the gaming board, in fact, is under investigation by tribal police for what he described as “financial management” issues.

As of press time today, Tuesday, no charges had yet been filed against the gaming board of directors in tribal court.

According to confidential tribal documents recently provided to the News-Review, it is alleged that on Jan. 25, the three remaining members of the gaming board of directors — Carol McFall, chairperson; Judith Pierzynowski, vice chairperson; and Sheran Patton, treasurer/secretary — acted outside its authority by terminating Denise White, director of human resources for the tribe, and approving a $53,000 severance check to her the following day (Jan. 26), which was stopped shortly after its issuance.

Continue reading →

Washington Supreme Court Holds that Tribal Police have “Inherent Authority” to Engage in Fresh Pursuit Off the Reservation

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here’s the opinion in State v. Eriksen. An excerpt:

A Lummi Nation tribal police officer witnessed a motorist on
the reservation driving at night with high beams and drifting across the center divider.
Did the officer have authority to continue pursuing this vehicle beyond the
reservation’s borders and then detain the non-Indian driver until authorities with
jurisdiction to arrest for DUI1 arrived? This is an issue of first impression. We hold
tribal officers have inherent sovereign authority and statutory authority to continue
“fresh pursuit” of motorists who break traffic laws on the reservation and then drive
off the reservation. Therefore we affirm the trial court.

A Lummi Nation tribal police officer witnessed a motorist on the reservation driving at night with high beams and drifting across the center divider. Did the officer have authority to continue pursuing this vehicle beyond the reservation’s borders and then detain the non-Indian driver until authorities with jurisdiction to arrest for DUI1 arrived? This is an issue of first impression. We hold tribal officers have inherent sovereign authority and statutory authority to continue “fresh pursuit” of motorists who break traffic laws on the reservation and then drive off the reservation. Therefore we affirm the trial court.

All the briefs are here.

Court Denies Motion to Dismiss in FTCA Claim against Tribal Police

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Russell v. United States (D. Ariz.), a claim against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act for actions by tribal police. The court denied the government’s motion to dismiss.

Government Motion to Dismiss

Russell Opposition

Government Reply Brief

DCT Order Denying Motion to Dismiss Russell Complaint

Ninth Circuit Reverses Dismissal of Civil Rights Claims against Tribal Officers

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Bressi v. Ford, authored by Judge Canby, which is a sort of companion case to Murgia v. Reed. The court did affirm the dismissal of a Bivens-type action against the officers. Here are the lower court materials in Bressi.

An excerpt detailing what tribal officers may do during a traffic stop of non-Indians:

We conclude that a roadblock on a public right-of-way within tribal territory, established on tribal authority, is permissible only to the extent that the suspicionless stop of non-Indians is limited to the amount of time, and the nature of inquiry, that can establish whether or not they are Indians. When obvious violations, such as alcohol impairment, are found, detention on tribal authority for delivery to state officers is authorized. But inquiry going beyond Indian or non-Indian status, or including searches for evidence of crime, are not authorized on purely tribal authority in the case of non-Indians.

And an excerpt recognizing the implications of the decision:

We recognize that one result of our ruling is that tribal officers who are authorized to enforce state as well as tribal law, and proceed to exercise both powers in the operation of a roadblock, will be held to constitutional standards in establishing roadblocks. That result is consistent with our prior decision inEvans v. McKay, 869 F.2d 1341, 1348(9th Cir.1989), which held that officers acting pursuant to both tribal and city authority in making arrests were subject to a § 1983 claim. This result also appears to us to be an inevitable consequence of the accommodation of tribal authority over rights-of-way within Indian country and the rights of non-Indians to travel those rights-of-way. If a tribe wishes to avoid such constitutional restraints, its officers operating roadblocks will have to confine themselves, upon stopping non-Indians, to questioning to determine non-Indian status and to detention only for obvious violations of state law.

Federal Tort Claims Act Case re: Isleta Police Officer

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the opinions in Garcia v. USA and Garcia, out of the District of New Mexico, decided last March. Garcia the tribal cop/defendant allegedy assaulted Garcia the plaintiff at a wedding, and Garcia sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act and the officer individually. The U.S. argued that Garcia had no claim under the Act, and the officer argued that there was no jurisdiction over him.

DCT Order re FTCA Claims

US Motion to Dismiss

Garcia Response Brief

US Reply Brief

DCT Order re Individual Defendant

Suit re: Tribal Police Tort Claim Dismissed

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

The case is Wallulatum v. Warm Springs Confederated Tribes (D. Or.). Here are the materials:

Wallulatum DCT Order

Warm Springs Motion to Dismiss

Wyoming Supreme Court Upholds Authority of BIA Officers to Detain Non-Indians until State Law Enforcement Arrives

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the Wyoming Supreme Court’s decision in Coyler v. State Dept. of Transportation. This case contains a very nice review of the various state and federal cases involving the authority of tribal cops to detain non-Indians until state law enforcement arrives. An excerpt:

Viewing the facts of the instant case in the context of the law just recited, we must conclude that nothing occurred in the detention of the appellant to render his arrest unlawful. The appellant could not have been arrested and prosecuted within the tribal court system because he was not a tribal member. He could not have been arrested by the B.I.A. officer and prosecuted within the federal system because the DWUI offense was a State offense, making him subject to arrest and prosecution by the State. Despite the jurisdictional olio on the reservation, the law is clear that the appropriate action to be taken in circumstances such as those presented in this case is for the reservation officer to detain the appellant for formal arrest by a state officer. That is what happened.