Other
Filter: AL AK AZ AR CA CO CT DE DC FL GA HI ID IL IN IA KS KY LA ME MD MA MI MN MS MO MT NE NV NH NJ NM NY NC ND OH OK OR PA RI SC SD TN TX UT VT VA WA WV WI WY
Arizona
Parties: Arizona Solicitor General Divisions and Section Chief Counsels
Date enacted/published: May 9, 2002
Description:
An Arizona Solicitor General interoffice memo stating the official position concerning Nevada v. Hicks. Despite broad language that potentially expands state jurisdiction in Indian country, the solicitor general states that Hicks does not represent an expansion of state jurisdiction and should instead be narrowly read. State and federal agencies should continue to coordinate with tribal law enforcement agencies.
Parties: Salt River Tribal Police Department and Law Enforcement Coordinating Committee of Arizona District U.S. Attorney
Date enacted/published: February 11, 2002
Description:
In light of the potential impact that the U.S. Supreme Court case Nevada v. Hicks would have on existing tribal, state, county, and federal law enforcement collaboration agreements, the U.S. Attorney wrote to the Salt River Police Department.
- The letter discloses that meetings are being held to determine the impact of Hicks on existing policies.
- The letter expresses a desire to continue law enforcement collaboration.
Parties: Salt River Pima-Maricopa Police Department, Other Tribal Jurisdictions, and Arizona State Law Enforcement Agencies
Date enacted/published: Unkown
Description:
The Salt River Police Department wrote to other law enforcement agencies to detail its extradition process and highlights, and thereby express its desire for mutual cooperation.
California
Parties: California Attorney General and All California District Attorneys, Sheriffs, and Chiefs of Police
Date enacted/published: April 16, 2002
Description:
The California attorney general negatively reacts to the Ninth Circuit decision in Bishop Paiute v. County of Inyo, in which personal civil liability was imposed for an improper use of Public Law 280 (PL 280) authority to issue a search warrant to obtain “uniquely tribal property.” Despite concerns over the impact of Bishop Paiute on criminal law enforcement in Indian country, the attorney general believes the application will be narrow. Legal process should not be used to obtain “uniquely tribal property.” If necessary, law enforcement agencies should resort to tribal collaboration.
Parties: Hoopa Valley Tribal Police Department and Humboldt County Drug Task Force
Date enacted/published: October 6, 2000; April 6, 1999; & October 23, 1999
Description:
These are three investigative police reports detailing the collaborative effort between the Hoopa Tribal Police and the Humboldt County Drug Task Force that identify and detain suspects for various drug felonies. Reports include a
- Process for obtaining and serving the search warrant,
- Process for arresting the suspects,
- Process for collecting evidence,
- Transcript of suspect interrogation, and
- List of items in evidence.
Washington
Parties: Skagit County Prosecutors and Swinomish Tribal Police
Date enacted/published: June 22, 1990
Description:
This letter from the Skagit County prosecutor to the Chief of Swinomish Tribal Police requests that any requested documents from the tribal police include a fact sheet and a copy of the Skagit County report to be attached with the documents. Attached to the letter is the standard request form that the tribe should use when providing documents to the Skagit County Prosecuting Attorney.
For additional information contact:Swinomish Tribal Police
1729 Reservation Rd.
P.O. Box 368
LaConner, WA 98257
Or
Skagit County Prosecuting Attorney
Courthouse Annex – 605 S. 3rd St.
Mount Vernon, WA 98273
(206) 336-9460
Parties: Tulalip Indian Tribal Community and Cascade County
Date enacted/published: October 10, 2002
Description:
This Tulalip tribal search warrant authorizes the search of a home located on the Tulalip Indian Reservation relating to a burglary crime committed in Cascade County, as well as to the alleged breeding of two pit bull dogs, in violation of Tulalip Tribal Ordinance 113. The judicial court order includes an Affidavit of the Chief of Police for the Tulalip Tribes and his professional experience and knowledge of the case.
