United States v. Cooley

Whether the lower courts erred in suppressing evidence on the theory that a police officer of an Indian tribe lacked authority to temporarily detain and search respondent, a non-Indian, on a public right-of-way within a reservation based on a potential violation of state or federal law.

Lower court materials here.

Update:

NCAI Amicus Brief

NIWRC Amicus Brief

Waiver of Response

Split Ninth Circuit Denies En Banc Petition in ICRA Search and Seizure Case

January 25, 2020Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in United States v. Cooley:

us-en-banc-petition.pdf

response.pdf

ca9-order.pdf

Panel materials and briefs here.

Ninth Circuit Holds Exclusionary Rule Applies to Evidence Obtained in Violation of ICRA’s Fourth Amendment Counterpart

March 21, 2019March 21, 2019Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in United States v. Cooley.

Briefs here.

Ninth Circuit Briefs in United States v. Cooley

July 18, 2017March 21, 2019Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

US Brief

Cooley Brief

An excerpt:

A tribal law enforcement officer conducted a welfare check on Cooley, who had pulled over on a public highway where it crosses the Crow Reservation. It appeared to the officer that he was dealing with a non-Indian person. Soon thereafter, the encounter raised suspicion that Cooley was impaired and trafficking drugs and guns. He was detained and transferred to state custody. The district court suppressed the evidence from the stop based on a new Fourth Amendment test it derived from a tribal roadblock case. The district court held that the detention of Cooley and search of his vehicle violated the Fourth Amendment because, at the time the tribal officer realized Cooley was a non-Indian, it was not obvious that a state or federal crime had occurred. This new obviousness standard, the court held, is “notably higher” than probable cause.

Like this:

Like this:

Like this:

Like this:

Like this:

Like this:

Like this:

Like this:

Like this:

Like this: