Here is the news article, via Pechanga.
And the materials so far:
Wash SCT Accepting Direct Review
Lower court materials:
Washington Supreme Court
Washington SCT (On Reconsideration) Holds 5-4 that Tribal Law Enforcement Authority Stops at Rez Boundaries
The majority opinion is here, and the two dissenting opinions are here and here. The majority holds (reversing itself from opinions in 2009 and 2010) that a criminal suspect (here a reckless driver) is utterly free and clear from tribal jurisdiction once the suspect leaves the reservation. Tribal police cannot even hold the suspect until state officials arrive.
One of the dissents raises an interesting point. This outcome strongly encourages anyone — even tribal members — from making a crazy, reckless beeline for the reservation boundary.
Our first posting on this case (with links to briefs) is here. Here are the previous opinions:
First it was 9-0, then 6-3, and now 5-4 the other way. What happened?
State Supreme Court Outcomes: Washington
Due to popular demand, Washington is up next. [Lemme know if anyone objects to the W/L characterizations below. Some cases are a little difficult to figure.]
In Washington, tribal interest win 47 percent of cases
Here are the cases:
Vacancy on Washington Supreme Court
Here is the notice:
Notice of Judicial Vacancy Supreme Court May 2011[1]
Hopefully, Indian country will respond.
State of Washington v. Comenout Briefs
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
Briefs in Washington SCT Case Involving State Criminal Jurisdiction over Off-Rez Treaty Fishing Grounds
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
Washington Tribes’ Challenge to Wash. Water Statute Fails
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.
Quinault Indian Nation v. Sea Crest Inc. — Briefing in Montana Case
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?!?!
Washington Supreme Court Holds that Tribal Police have “Inherent Authority” to Engage in Fresh Pursuit Off the Reservation
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.
Case on Authority of Tribal Police to Detain Off-Reservation
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.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.