No. 13332
I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A
F F OTN
1976
STATE O M N A A e x r e 1
F OTN
SHARON O D ELK, J R . ,
L
Relator,
THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE O F
MONTANA, i n and f o r t h e County o f Big
Horn, and t h e HONORABLE CHARLES T.,UEDKE,
P r e s i d i n g Judge,
Respondents.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING:
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant :
Moses, Kampfe, T o l l i v c r and W r i g h t , B i l l i n g s ,
Montana
Frank Kampfe a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana
F o r Respondent :
Hon. R o b e r t L. Woodahl, A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , Helena,
Montana
John F. North, A s s i s t a n t A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , a p p e a r e d ,
Helena, Montana
James Seykora, County A t t o r n e y , a r g u e d , H a r d i n ,
Montana
Submitted: A p r i l 8 , 1?76
Decided : -
JpL 8 1976
-
F i l e d : iqj!f!- 8
TBL!;**~A.r!\ t ~.- . i i e s ~
L :I :
Clerk
M r . J u s t i c e Gene B . Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court.
This i s a c h a l l e n g e t o t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e d i s t r i c t
c o u r t , presented t o t h i s Court on a p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t of
supervisory control o r other appropriate w r i t . Relator i s the
defendant i n a c r i m i n a l a c t i o n i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Big Horn
County. R e l a t o r i s an e n r o l l e d member of t h e Crow T r i b e of I n d i a n s
and r e s i d e s w i t h i n t h e e x t e r i o r boundaries of t h e Crow I n d i a n
Reservation. The Crow T r i b e of I n d i a n s appeared and argued a s
Amicus Curiae.
O November 27, 1975, a t t h e H i l l t o p Tavern l o c a t e d approxi-
n
mately one m i l e west of Hardin, Montana, o u t s i d e t h e e x t e r i o r
boundary of t h e Crow I n d i a n Reservation, a shooting occurred i n
which one John Matt B e l l was k i l l e d by a h i g h powered r i f l e .
The Big Horn County s h e r i f f ' s d e ~ a r t m e n t ~ p u r s u a n t a n
to
i n v e s t i g a t i o n , had reason t o b e l i e v e t h a t Sharon Old Elk, Jr. was
involved i n t h e commission of t h e crime and t h a t h i s v e h i c l e , a
green 1971 Plymouth Duster b e a r i n g Big Horn County, Montana,
l i c e n s e p l a t e s 22-4259, was a l s o involved and a t t h e time o f t h e
homicide t h e c a r of Sharon Old Elk, Jr. was e x t e n s i v e l y damaged
on t h e l e f t f r o n t door.
Pursuant t o i n v e s t i g a t i o n , a complaint was prepared f o r
d e l i b e r a t e homicide, charging Sharon Old Elk, Jr . with t h e crime
and was brought b e f o r e t h e Honorable Kenneth Snively , J u s t i c e of
t h e Peace a t Hardin, Montana. An a r r e s t warrant was i s s u e d f o r one
Sharon Old Elk, Jr. The warrant was d e l i v e r e d t o g e t h e r w i t h a
copy of t h e complaint t o S h e r i f f Robert L. Brown.
The v e h i c l e b e l i e v e d t o be used during t h e homicide w a s
s p o t t e d w i t h i n t h e e x t e r i o r boundaries of t h e Crow I n d i a n Reservation
on t r u s t p r o p e r t y owned by George Old Elk 11.
The s h e r i f f of Big Horn County proceeded onto t h e Crow
I n d i a n Reservation armed w i t h a s t a t e a r r e s t w a r r a n t , and i n t h e
presence of a Bureau of I n d i a n A f f a i r s S p e c i a l O f f i c e r proceeded
t o t h e Crow I n d i a n T r i b a l Judge, F r e d r i c k Knows H i s Gun.
As a m a t t e r of f o r m a l i t y and c o u r t e s y and knowing t h e r e was
no formal e x t r a d i t i o n proceedings w i t h i n t h e Crow T r i b e and knowing
t h e Crow T r i b e had no e x t r a d i t i o n power o r s t a t u t e , t h e s h e r i f f
o f Big Horn County r e q u e s t e d t h e T r i b a l Judge t o i s s u e a t r i b a l
c o u r t o r d e r o r s i m i l a r w a r r a n t f o r t h e a r r e s t and apprehension of
Sharon Old Elk, Jr. Judge Knows H i s Gun d i d n o t i s s u e such a
warrant and i n f a c t r e f u s e d t o do so.
S h e r i f f Robert L. Brown t o g e t h e r w i t h o t h e r d e p u t i e s and
Bureau of I n d i a n A f f a i r s S p e c i a l O f f i c e r William S n e l l , proceeded
t o t h e George Old Elk I1 r e s i d e n c e l o c a t e d approximately t h r e e
m i l e s s o u t h of Crow Agency, Montana, which i s l o c a t e d on t r u s t
property.
S h e r i f f Brown placed r e l a t o r , Sharon Old Elk, J r . , under
a r r e s t , pursuant t o t h e s t a t e a r r e s t w a r r a n t , and advised him of h i s
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s , served a copy of t h e warrant and t h e complaint
upon r e l a t o r and t r a n s p o r t e d him back t o Big Horn County Courthouse
a t Hardin, Montana, where t h e r e l a t o r was a r r a i g n e d b e f o r e Judge
Kenneth S n i v e l y , J u s t i c e o f t h e Peace.
There i s no f e d e r a l , s t a t e o r Crow I n d i a n s t a t u t e , ordinance
o r r e g u l a t i o n a u t h o r i z i n g t h e procedure of e x t r a d i t i o n t o and from
an I n d i a n r e s e r v a t i o n w i t h i n t h e e x t e r i o r boundaries of t h e s t a t e of
Montana.
- 3 -
A l l t h e f a c t s n e c e s s a r y t o review t h e i s s u e p r e s e n t e d t o
t h i s Court by r e l a t o r have been s t i p u l a t e d and admitted a s evidence
by t h e p a r t i e s .
R e l a t o r contends t h e f a c t s surrounding h i s a r r e s t c l e a r l y
show t h e a r r e s t was i l l e g a l s i n c e it was made pursuant t o a s t a t e
a r r e s t w a r r a n t , executed by a s t a t e o f f i c e r , on an I n d i a n person
w i t h i n t h e boundaries of an I n d i a n r e s e r v a t i o n . The a r r e s t and
subsequent t r a n s p o r t a t i o n of r e l a t o r from t h e r e s e r v a t i o n by t h e
s h e r i f f of Big Horn County, e s t a b l i s h a de f a c t o e x t r a d i t i o n pro-
cedure which r e l a t o r b e l i e v e s i s i n v a l i d , i l l e g a l and i n v i o l a t i o n
of h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s .
R e l a t o r h a s c i t e d a l l of t h e recognized c a s e s which e s t a b l i s h
t h e unique s t a t u s of t h e American I n d i a n a s a c i t i z e n and t h e
r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e I n d i a n and j u r i s d i c t i o n a l powers of t h e
t r i b a l government, f e d e r a l government and t h e s t a t e government.
Very simply most m a t t e r s w i t h i n t h e e x t e r i o r boundaries of an
I n d i a n r e s e r v a t i o n a r e w i t h i n t h e e x c l u s i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e
t r i b a l courts o r federal courts unless f a l l i n g specifical2y within
t h e s t a t e ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n a s d i r e c t e d o r allowed by an a c t of Congress.
There i s no disagreement a s a g e n e r a l p r o p o s i t i o n w i t h t h i s argu-
ment of r e l a t o r . R e l a t o r r e l i e s on McClanahan v . S t a t e Tax Commis-
s i o n of Arizona, 411 U.S. 164, 93 S.Ct. 1257, 36 L.ed 2d 1 2 9 , 135,
f o r the proposition t h a t :
"'* * * E s s e n t i a l l y , a b s e n t governing Acts of
Congress, t h e q u e s t i o n has always been whether t h e
s t a t e a c t i o n i n f r i n g e d on t h e r i g h t of r e s e r v a t i o n
I n d i a n s t o make t h e i r own laws and be r u l e d by them.'"
Relator then c i t e s a s h i s p r i n c i p a l a u t h o r i t y i n r e l a t i o n t o service
of p r o c e s s , a r r e s t o r e x t r a d i t i o n j u r i s d i c t i o n by s t a t e a u t h o r i t i e s
over I n d i a n r e s i d e n t s of a r e s e r v a t i o n t h e c a s e of S t a t e o f Arizona
ex r e l . M e r r i l l v . T u r t l e , 413 F.2d 683,686 ( 9 t h C i r . 1969).
I n T u r t l e , a Cheyenne I n d i a n , who r e s i d e d on t h e Navajo
I n d i a n Reservation i n Arizona, was sought by t h e S t a t e of Oklahoma
f o r t r i a l on a charge o f second degree f o r g e r y . Oklahoma f i r s t
a p p l i e d t o t h e Navajo T r i b a l Council f o r e x t r a d i t i o n of defendant.
The Navajo T r i b a l Court r e f u s e d t o e x t r a d i t e , t h e defendant. As
a r e s u l t of a r e q u e s t from Oklahoma o f f i c i a l s , t h e Governor of
Arizona ordered t h e e x t r a d i t i o n of t h e defendant, pursuant t o
Arizona l a w . The s h e r i f f of Apache County, Arizona, executed t h e
Arizona Governor's warrant by a r r e s t i n g t h e defendant on t h e
r e s e r v a t i o n and c o n f i n i n g him i n t h e t r i b a l j a i l . The Ninth
C i r c u i t Court h e l d t h a t Arizona's e x e r c i s e of claimed j u r i s d i c t i o n
would c l e a r l y i n t e r f e r e w i t h t h e r i g h t s e s s e n t i a l t o t h e I n d i a n ' s
self-government.
The Ninth C i r c u i t Court reached i t s d e c i s i o n by c o n s i d e r i n g
t h e c r i t e r i a o f whether t h e claimed r i g h t by Arizona t o e x e r c i s e
j u r i s d i c t i o n by means of e x t r a d i t i o n would i n f r i n g e on t h e r i g h t
of r e s e r v a t i o n I n d i a n s t o make t h e i r own laws and t o be r u l e d by
them o r whether t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of s t a t e a u t h o r i t y t o e x t r a d i t e
would i n t e r f e r e w i t h r e s e r v a t i o n self-government.
R e l a t o r concludes h i s argument w i t h t h e r e q u e s t t h a t t h i s
Court r e g a r d an I n d i a n r e s e r v a t i o n , w i t h i n t h e s t a t e of Montana,
a s a co-equal sovereign, such a s o u r 49 s i s t e r s t a t e s . This s i m -
p l i f i e s t h e remedy h e r e by a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e Uniform Criminal
E x t r a d i t i o n A c t , s e c t i o n s 95-3101 through 95-3136, R.C.M. 1947.
T h i s proposal may have a n a p p e a l i n g r i n g t h e f i r s t time
around, however, i t would t a k e a g r e a t d e a l more from our I n d i a n
c i t i z e n s than i t would bestow, i f i n f a c t we had t h e power t o do
s o , which i n f a c t we do n o t .
W a g r e e w i t h t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t i n t h e absence of governing
e
a c t s of Congress, t h e q u e s t i o n has always been whether s t a t e a c t i o n
- 5 -
i n f r i n g e d on t h e r i g h t of r e s e r v a t i o n I n d i a n s t o make t h e i r own
laws and t o be r u l e d by them.
W d i s a g r e e w i t h r e l a t o r ' s a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e T u r t l e
e
c a s e t o t h e i n s t a n t f a c t s t o demonstrate an i n t e r f e r e n c e i n t h e
r i g h t of t h e I n d i a n s t o make t h e i r own laws and be governed by
them. I n T u r t l e t h e s i t u a t i o n i s analogous t o t h e q u e s t i o n b e f o r e
us however, t h e one Cmportant e x c e p t i o n i s t h a t t h e Navajo T r i b e
of I n d i a n s had adopted a r e s o l u t i o n i n r e g a r d t o an e x t r a d i t i o n
proceeding. The Court s t a t e d :
" I n 1956 t h e Navajo T r i b a l Council, t h e t r i b a l
l e g i s l a t i v e body, adopted a Resolution providing
procedures f o r I n d i a n e x t r a d i t i o n . While t h i s
t r i b a l e x t r a d i t i o n law by i t s terms s p e c i f i c a l l y
provides f o r e x t r a d i t i o n o n l y t o t h e s t a t e s of
Arizona, Utah, and New Mexico, i t h a s been approved
by t h e Commissioner f o r I n d i a n A f f a i r s a s provided
f o r by f e d e r a l law and i s now p a r t of t h e Navajo
T r i b a l Code. 17 N.T.C., S e c t i o n s 1841-42. The T r i b e
h a s thus c o d i f i e d and does now e x e r c i s e i t s e x t r a d i t i o n
power. This power cannot now be assumed by o r shared
w i t h t h e S t a t e of Arizona without ' i n f r i n g [ i n g ] on t h e
r i g h t of r e s e r v a t i o n I n d i a n s t o make t h e i r own laws and
be r u l e d by them.' Williams v. Lee, supra a t p. 220 of
358 U.S., a t p. 271 of 79 S.Ct." (Emphasis s u p p l i e d ) .
The Crow T r i b e of I n d i a n s had no e x t r a d i t i o n code a t any
time p e r t i n e n t t o t h i s m a t t e r and hence T u r t l e would n o t apply.
F u r t h e r , t h e New Mexico Supreme Court reviewed T u r t l e i n
S t a t e S e c u r i t i e s , I n c . v. Anderson, 84 N.M. 629, 506 P.2d 786, 788,
wherein i t h e l d t h a t t h e s t a t e c o u r t could o b t a i n j u r i s d i c t i o n
over I n d i a n defendants by i s s u i n g and s e w i n g process upon them
w h i l e they were on t h e r e s e r v a t i o n . It i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o note
t h e New Mexico Supreme Court i n d i c a t e s t h a t i t had made a survey
of t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n a l q u e s t i o n and s t a t e d :
" I n an attempt t o determine whether I n d i a n immunity from
process i s necessary i n t h i s case t o protect the r i g h t
of r e s e r v a . t i o n I n d i a n s t o make t h e i r own laws and be
ruled by them, we have surveyed a number of cases and
other authorities. According to some court decisions
some powers reserved to Indians for their exclusive
jurisdiction, and which may therefore be necessary for
Indian self-government, are: jurisdiction to try an
offense committed on the reservation by or against an
Indian, Williams v. United States, 327 U.S. 711, 66
S.Ct. 778, 90 L ed. 962 (1946); extradition powers, if
a tribe has codified and exercises its own extradition -
law, Arizona ex rel. Merrill v. Turtle, 413 F.2d 683
(9th.Cir. 1969), cert. denied 396 U.S. 1003, 90 S.Ct. 551,
*
24 L.Ed.2d 494-(1970) * *.I1 (Emphasis supplied.)
The New Mexico Supreme Court agrees with this Court's
interpretation of Turtle in that the tribe must first have codified
and exercised its own extradition laws before the rule in Turtle
would apply.
Further, this Court in Bad Horse v. Bad Horse, 163 Mont.
445, 451, 452, 517 P.2d 893, in a related matter involving service
of process within the exterior boundaries of the Fort Peck Indian
Reservation, said:
"Art. 111, Sec. 6 of the 1889 Montana Constitution
provides :
"'Courts of justice shall be open to every person,
and a speedy remedy afforded for every injury of person,
property or character; and that right and justice shall
be administered without sale, denial or delay.'
"Section 83-102, R.C .M. 1947, concerning jurisdiction
provides :
"'The sovereignty and jurisdiction of this state
extend to all places within its boundaries, as estab-
lished by the constitution, excepting such places as are
under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States.'
"Service was obtained pursuant to Rule 4, Montana Rules
of Civil Procedure. Once the district court has assumed
jurisdiction over the subject matter and process has been
properly served, the defendant cannot throw up a shield
around herself by claiming that the state process server
cannot pierce the exterior boundaries of an Indian reser-
vation and serve civil process therein.
"In the instant case the marriage 'contract' took place
off the reservation. There has been no preemption by
the federal government which could prevent the transfer
of jurisdiction to the state. There is no disclaimer
made and there is no infringement on the right of the
tribe to govern itself. Indian country is not a federal
enclave off limits to state process servers. Service of
process extends to an Indian defendant served within the
Fort Peck Reservation. State Securities, Inc. v. Anderson,
84 N.M. 629, 506 P.2d 786.
"The myth of Indian sovereignty has pervaded judicial
attempts by state courts to deal with contemporary
Indian problems. Such rationale must yield to the
realities of modern life, both on and off the reservation.
As Judge Russell Smith recently observed in United States
v. Blackfeet Tribe, (D.C.Mont.), 364 F.Supp. 192, 194:
"'The blunt fact, however, is that an Indian
Tribe is sovereign to the extent that the United States
permits it to be sovereign---neither more nor less. 1
"Only by throwing off\the strictures of 'Indian sovereignty
can state courts enter the arena and meet the problems of
the modern Indian. If Congress and the federal appellate
cnurts have a better solution, let them come forward."
This Court in Bad Horse also relied on Anderson, the New Mexico
case discussed heretofore.
Relator terminates his petition before this Court with this
final plea:
"CONCLUSION: This Honorable Court should take
jurisdiction hereof and grant relator relief under
an appropriate writ. The matter of the protection of
an individual's constitutionally guaranteed right to due
process of law, as well as a definitive declaration of
the jurisdictional authority and power of the State of
Montana in regard to Indian reservations within its
boundaries, are of great public 'nterest and directly
affect the impartial and effective maintenance of
Justice and the public's confidence in and respect for
the courts. There is no other appeal or other adequate
or speedy remedy at law available to the relator for the
disposition of this issue." (Emphasis supplied.)
Individual rights, due process, impartial and effective
maintenance of justice and the public conhidence in and respect
for the courts are paramount in the resolution of these kind of
matters. However, these rights and duties afe owed to all citizens
n o t only t h o s e r e s i d i n g w i t h i n t h e e x t e r i o r boundaries o f an
Indian reservation. The c i t i z e n s of Montana g e n e r a l l y and Big
Horn County p a r t i c u l a r l y would be g r o s s l y deprived i f under t h e
g u i s e of i n d i v i d u a l due process they n o t only had no speedy,
adequate, remedy b u t no remedy a t a l l . This i n e f f e c t i s the
p o s i t i o n of r e l a t o r . The f e d e r a l a u t h o r i t i e s have no j u r i s d i c -
t i o n pursuant t o 18 U.S.C. 5 5 1151 through 1165, a s t h e crime was
n o t committed i n I n d i a n country a s d e f i n e d i n 18 U.S.C. 5 1151.
Here, we do n o t have t h e s i t u a t i o n t o meet t h e requirements of
Unlawful F l i g h t t o Avoid P r o s e c u t i o n , 18 U.S.C. $1073. Tribal
Judge F r e d e r i c k Knows His Gun had no a u t h o r i t y t o e x t r a d i t e o r
under T i t l e 25, Code of F e d e r a l Regulations, t o apprehend r e l a t o r
on b e h a l f of t h e s t a t e of Montana f o r t h e crime of d e l i b e r a t e
homicide.
Finding no i n t e r f e r e n c e w i t h t r i b a l self-government and
t h a t t h e s t a t e of Montana proceeded under t h e only remedy a v a i l a b l e ,