+1 LMAO

I'll throw the turd back in your court..

Why do you feel entitled to 1/2 the game in WA? What makes you so much more special than other members of Society? You want to whine about tribal rights, what makes you and your people more equal than the rest of us?

LIVIN chief. Sorry for the commentary I guess you are cool with renobs destroying runs of fish. If you want to call it banter fine I've never really cared about what anyone thinks of me, so let the looney tunes rock the hut and the freak flag fly. By the way you ever considered that brain surgery option?

i heard you cant sue a tribe or tribal member unless you have consent from the tribe to sue them ??, anyone heard that one before ?

Larry. Thanks for the illumnation of the issues, or at least part of what I am sure will become the whole. I haven't followed this thing other than what I have read here so forgive my ignorance on the specifics.

A few questions.

How could the officers have been acting in "official capacity" being outside of the area in which they are authorized to cary out such capacities. I rememer reading a few posts back that these fellows may not have been tribal members, but rather folks hired by the tribe for the specific purpose of tribal law enforcement? Is that the case?

Does the "immunity clause" you mention make provision for wards of the tribe, or just members of the tribe? If they are not tribal members, and they were outside of tribal jurisdiction, they were private citizens of the US carrying an LE commission authorizing them to intervene to prevent harm to person (themselves or others), to aid a fellow office in harms way, to protect property from harm, and to carry their service weapon concealed. That's it.

As you mention, tribal LEO's are, in essence wards of the Fed and acting under powers granted them by the Govt. I can't see how they would be immune from either criminal or civil prosecution as such. Admittedly, I haven't looked for any information to substantiate this, but it just seems a bit out of place if that were to be the case.

Immune or not, officers responding after the fact would likely never take another officer into custody unless they were causing physical harm to a person outside of what could be considered "reasonable" given the circumstances. For all they knew, PC, imminent harm, jurisdiction, etc, etc could all have been intact. I suspect they knew better though.

Do you have links to the aforementioned legal speak?

Treaties suck............


Camps were built and battle lines were drawn. Soldiers drilled in the rain and prepared for battle. Their cause? A British pig that couldn't be kept from eating American potatoes.

http://www.moon.com/destinations/washington/san-juan-islands/san-juan-island/sights/the-pig-war

ColeyG:

Not an expert but have read this pretty thoroughly and have some exposure to the cross-commissioning. So will try to answer your questions but please go back to the first three words: NOT AN EXPERT.

1. What I tried to convey was that even though these "officers" were outside the reservation and the individuals they accosted were not tribal members (hence outside of of tribal jurisdiction) the tribal officers were employees of the tribe, on the clock, and the tribal representative has indicated they were working for the tribe at the time of the incident. My spin on that was that by those words he was cloaking them under the tribal immunity from suit. Criminal charges would be another matter.

2. To clarify, drop the issue of wards of the Government from this specific situation. That was a part of my general comment about multiple status held by tribal members.

3. Also, it may be easier to understand that tribal officers do not need to be tribal members or Indians. That is not really the issue. They were "officers" hired by the tribe but whose jurisdiction was extremely limited. They can arrest tribal members on the reservation and (I think) off the reservation and can detain non-tribal members on the reservation pending arrival of non-tribal officers. They have NO jurisdiction over non-tribal members off the reservation. In that situation they are not LE. They are no more and no less than any other citizen. That is why my comment about why I think the Washington State Patrol officer and/or Sheriff's Deputy should have taken them into custody when it was determined that there was no jurisdiction (and no reasonable possibility of a "mistake").

4. Also, the manner in which the tribal "officers" engaged the properly licensed hunters who had harvested a legal elk in the designated hunting area was extremely unprofessional. Had a real LE officer done that he/she would probably be charged or at least fired.

The fairly new state law which allows for cross-commissioning of tribal officers by individual County Sheriffs includes several very important requirements. Not only does the Sheriff have to agree, the individual tribe (each is its own "Nation") must wave its immunity from suit and post a fairly significant bond to ensure that non-tribal citizens have recourse. In order to be cross-commissioned I believe the individual tribal officers must also attend and successfully complete the same courses required of all other LE in the State.

I don't know what source information you are requesting. Actually, your posted link pretty well sets the stage for this situation. As for cross-commissioning I am sure a search engine inquiry will lead you to it for the specifics.

Hope this helps you understand the amount of angst this situation has caused around here.

Latest Development WDFW's position (click to read):
Tribal LE acted outside their authority

I'm curious "who" is conducting the "independent" investigation. And not to be overly a conspiracy theorist, an opinion from the AG's office is desireable, but it's not uncommon for the AG's office to receive a cue from the Governor's office, which is connected to significant lobbying and campaign contributions from tribes with casinos. I hope the relevant media keeps active their PDA requests for all paperwork connected with the case. This has federal appeals written all over it if the state attempts to muzzle it.

Sg

IMO
This all boils down to "Reasonable Suspicion".
Remember what happened the day the Patriot Act was passed.
Hells Angles club doors were falling coast to coast due to ? Guess what.......Reasonable Suspicion...... no warrant needed to search and seize.
So, with a call from the public stating that they saw a guy with a gun drop an elk in a rural area near the highway, doesn't this fall under reasonable suspicion?

And also, isn't a LEO a LEO ? No jurisdiction needed. Kinda like a county sherrif checking your fish/hunt license. Or a commissioned Game agent giving a moving violation on the roadway.


Any clearification ?

Irie 1, you are incorrect aboutt these guys having jurisdiction. They had none. They were not commissioned officers of the law in the territory they were in.

No excuse for drawing guns and holding them at gunpoint.

They were 10 miles off the reservation.

Irie1:

With some nine pages of discussion and the link to the WDFW findings what part of this don't you understand?

If the tribal officers received a call (a fact not alleged to have occurred that I have noted) and the location was outside the reservation an appropriate response would have been to call an agency that had jurisdiction in that area (County Sheriff, WSP, WDFW). If it was possible that the hunters were subject to tribal jurisdiction (i.e. tribal members) then the tribal officers could/should have accompanied the officers having jurisdiction.

Speculation is that these guys were driving down the road, saw what was occurring, and jumped right into it with guns drawn. Scary! Really scary!

We will see when all of the investigations are completed but given the WDFW release this isn't looking good for those guys.

reasonable suspicion and jurisdiction

Don't get me wrong... I'm all for the hunters in this case. Just have ?'s.


Being a tribal EO what or who has authority over them? FBI, US Marshall? Does tribal EO's have the authority of a US Marshall since they are a federal employee? or are they fed?

Tribal LEO's only have authority over tribal members on and off reservation. They may stop and detain nontribal members on reservation but they had absolutely no jusridiction over non tribal people off reservation, PERIOD. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

They were not federal gov't employees in any way.

Reasonable suspicion applies to a reasonable officer has reason to believe that a crime has occured, or is about to occur, using the reasnable man standard.

Guys hunting elk is not reasonable suspicion, and these asshats had no jurisdiction, so they were not officers.

Armed war party, yes. Officers with jurisdiction, no.

Irie1,

Check the Oliphant case referenced above in this thread. It is the most recent applicable case law on the issue that I know of. Dogfish's conclusions are accurate. The Tribal LEOs were no more than armed citizens assualting legitimate hunters with deadly weapons. Seems like a criminal offense. Sorta' like a Canadian Mountie taking the action that occurred here. He has zero jurisdiction, zero authority. Bad move.

Sg

Thanks for the follow-up Larry B.

Sounds like this will likely come down to an unlawful detainment case??No force was used. Based on the factors needed for "qualified immunity" I still don't see how these officers and the agency (tribe)wouldn't be civilly liable if the hunters chose to go that route.

Irie, "reasonable suspicion" usually enters a situation when conducting searches, etc. Officers are granted power to intervene, using force if necessary, if the following factors are met a) the crime itself is severe enough to warrant it. b) if the suspects is of immediate threat to the officers or others, c)if they are actively resisting arrest, d) if they are actively avoiding arrest by fleeing. There are a few others that are less specific, but those came out of a case in the 90's Graham vs. Connor and expanded on earlier case law in TN vs. Gardner.

Of course most of this goes out the window without JD and I mentioned the factors needed to respond outside of JD above.

Silly as it may seem, drawing a weapon on someone, as far as I know, doesn't necessarily add to the severity of the wrong doing such as in this case as long as a reasonable officer can articulate the need to do so.

What other "laws" would these fellows have broken other than illegally detaining these folks for an unreasonable amount of time.

Just thinking about this now, and I am wondering.. Would it be a reasonable defense to for them to way that since they were in there usual and accustomed hunting area they were legal to conduct patrol. Then stretch this by saying they believed the individuals were acting in a careless and dangerous manner to public safety and as such felt they were obligated as law officers to stop the action. No right to arrest, but a duty to stop the danger to the public in general. I don't think it the truth, but in legal terms it may be an out.