Facebook Twitter Email
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 2002

The Supreme Court on Monday took its first Indian law case of the term, agreeing to consider whether state jurisdiction extends to tribal lands for crimes that allegedly occur off-reservation.

Without comment, the justices accepted an appeal affecting the Bishop Paiute Tribe of California. The tribe won its case at a lower court, leading to fears of a reversal of what chairman Monty Bengochia earlier this year called a "resounding victory."

"It's a revolting development," Ralph R. LePera, an attorney for the tribe, added yesterday. "It's a direct attack on tribal government."

In March 2000, the tribe's Paiute Palace Casino was searched by Inyo County officials who were investigating three employees accused of welfare fraud. According to court documents, the officials used boltcutters to seize dozens of tribal records, including those of not named in the probe.

John D. Kirby, an attorney representing the county, argues that the action was warranted. "The issue is whether law enforcement has the legal right to go upon the reservation, specifically tribal casinos, in search of evidence for off-reservation criminal conduct," he said.

But the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in January 2002 found that the actions taken by the Inyo sheriff and a district attorney were illegal.

"We find that the county and its agents violated the tribe's sovereign immunity when they obtained and executed a search warrant against the tribe and tribal property," Circuit Judge Harry Pregerson wrote in a unanimous decision.

The dispute is reminiscent of a unanimous 2001 Supreme Court decision involving the reach of state jurisdiction onto tribal lands. In Nevada v. Hicks, No. 99-1994, the justices said state policing authority doesn't stop at the reservation border.

Indeed, lawyers on both sides of the Bishop Paiute case pointed to the precedent, widely hailed in Indian Country as a blow to tribal sovereignty, as as crucial. "Hicks dealt with an individual on tribal land," said LePera. "This one goes further."

"We feel that the Nevada v. Hicks case and its principles should apply in the case," responded Kirby.

Inyo County is backed by an impressive array of state law enforcement. The California State Sheriffs' Association and the National Sheriffs' Association have filed amicus briefs, as have the state of California and Los Angeles County, urging a reversal of the 9th Circuit ruling.

The tribe, in its brief to the Supreme Court, relies instead on the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) and its compact with the state to assert is sovereignty. "This Court has held that federal law does not authorize states to regulate Tribes’ gaming enterprises," the October 23 filing stated.

Although California is a Public Law 280 state, a federal law that granted states criminal and civil jurisdiction over Indian Country, both sides say a final decision will affect tribes everywhere. The county argues it has the right to go onto tribal land even in the absence of the law.

The Bishop Paiute Tribe, which has an 875-acre reservation in eastern California, employs about 140 at its casino, the overwhelming majority of whom are Indian. The employees that were targeted in the criminal probe are tribal members. All charges were eventually dropped by the county "due to lack of probable cause."

Decision Below:
BISHOP PAIUTE TRIBE v. COUNTY OF INYO No. 01-15007 (January 4, 2002)

Relevant Documents:
Docket Sheet: No. 02-281 | Opposition Brief: Bishop Paiute Tribe | Senate Testimony: Monty Bengochia on Supreme Court Precedents

Relevant Links:
Paiuite Palace Casino - http://www.paiutepalace.com
Inyo County - http://www.countyofinyo.org

Related Stories:
Federal judges a new concern for tribes (11/15)
Appeals court won't recognize tribal authority (10/15)
Tribes seek to overturn Supreme Court (02/27)
Inouye challenges tribes on sovereignty (02/26)
Supreme Court bars state officials from tribal suit (6/26)
O'Connor defends tribes amidst squabbling (6/26)