Skip to content
Back to top



Title: California Attorney General Memorandum Concerning Bishop Paiute v. County of Inyo
Parties: California Attorney General and All California District Attorneys, Sheriffs, and Chiefs of Police
Date enacted/published: April 16, 2002


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.

Title: Humboldt County Drug Task Force and Hoopa Valley Tribal Police Department Investigative Reports
Parties: Hoopa Valley Tribal Police Department and Humboldt County Drug Task Force
Date enacted/published: October 6, 2000; April 6, 1999; & October 23, 1999


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.