The Washington Supreme Court soon will decide whether the state has jurisdiction over alleged cigarette trafficking crimes committed by tribal members on Quinault Reservation land. Here are the materials:
85067-4 – State v. Robert Comenout, Jr. and Robert Comenout, Sr.
Hearing Date – 06/30/2011
Here are the materials in State v. Jim:
Washington Petition for Review
Jim Answer to State Petition for Review
Umatilla/Nez Perce/Warm Springs/Yakama Amicus Brief
The appellate decision is here: 230 P.3d 1080
Here is the opinion in Lummi Indian Tribe v. State of Washington (Wash. S. Ct.).
An excerpt:
In 1998, this court held that under then-existing law, new private water rights did not fully vest until the water was put to a beneficial use, and not merely when the “pumps and pipes” capacity to use the water was built. Dep’t of Ecology v. Theodoratus, 135 Wn.2d 582, 586, 957 P.2d 1241 (1998). We cautioned then that we were not considering municipal water rights, which often receive separate treatment in water law. Id. at 594. In response to our opinion, the legislature amended the municipal water law, Second Engrossed Second Substitute H.B. 1338, 58th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Wash. 2003) (SESSHB 1338), to, among other things, explicitly define certain nongovernmental water suppliers as municipal and to make that definition retroactive. We are now asked whether these amendments violate separation of powers or facially violate due process. We conclude they do not. We reverse in part and affirm in part.
Here are the briefs in this matter, in which the Quinault Indian Nation is attempted to prevent or regulate the development of part of its reservation by Sea Crest. Sea Crest has developed coastal lands, wetlands, and all without a permit from anyone, according to the Nation’s brief. The case is pending in the Washington Supreme Court. Classic case of why the Supreme Court’s Montana rule guarantees unaccountable and often illegal activity by non-Indian property owners.
Pacific Legal Foundation Amicus Brief
Where are the tribal amici?!?!
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.
All the briefs are here.
The Washington Supreme Court may soon decide whether tribal police (in this case, of the Lummi Tribe) have authority to detain non-Indians off the reservation, where the tribal police have engaged in hot pursuit of the non-Indian suspect (in this case, a drunk driver). The relevant precedent is State v. Schmuck. Here are the briefs in Washington v. Eriksen:
The case is on direct appeal from the trial court.
We’ve previously noted this case during the petitioning phase (here are the briefs favoring and opposing review by the Washington Supreme Court). The Washington Supreme Court now has reversed the lower court’s decision to recognize the treaty right of Indians convicted under state law to continue to exercise those treaty rights even after the conviction. Here are the materials:
Washington Supreme Court Materials
The Plaintiff has petitioned the State Supreme Court for review.
I don’t have a copy of the Plaintiff’s new petition (assuming there is one), but the petition she filed in October of 2006 is posted in the first message in this thread. The Tribe’s Answer to the Petition for Review (filed in mid-December) is available here.
Our previous posts with lower court materials are here and here.
Turtle Talk 