United States v. Cooley
593 U. S. ____ (2021) (2021)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A tribal police officer has inherent sovereign authority to temporarily detain and search non-Indian persons on public rights-of-way running through an Indian reservation for potential violations of state or federal law, as such conduct directly threatens the health or welfare of the tribe.
Facts:
- Late one night, Officer James Saylor of the Crow Police Department approached a truck parked on United States Highway 212, a public right-of-way within the Crow Reservation in Montana.
- Officer Saylor spoke to the driver, Joshua James Cooley, and observed that Cooley appeared to be non-native and had watery, bloodshot eyes.
- Officer Saylor noticed two semiautomatic rifles lying on Cooley’s front seat.
- Fearing violence, Officer Saylor ordered Cooley out of the truck and conducted a patdown search.
- While waiting for assistance, Officer Saylor returned to the truck and saw a glass pipe and a plastic bag containing methamphetamine.
- Additional officers, including one from the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs, arrived at the scene.
- Officer Saylor was directed to seize all contraband in plain view, leading to the discovery of more methamphetamine.
- Officer Saylor took Cooley to the Crow Police Department where federal and local officers further questioned him.
Procedural Posture:
- A federal grand jury indicted Joshua James Cooley on drug and gun offenses.
- Cooley filed a motion to suppress the drug evidence in the District Court.
- The District Court granted Cooley’s motion to suppress, reasoning that the tribal officer lacked authority to investigate non-apparent violations of state or federal law by a non-Indian on a public right-of-way.
- The Government, as appellant, appealed the District Court’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s suppression order, ruling that tribal officers could only stop a non-Indian if they first determined non-Indian status and the violation was 'apparent'.
- The Ninth Circuit denied the Government’s request for rehearing en banc.
- The Government, as petitioner, then sought and was granted a writ of certiorari by the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a tribal police officer have inherent sovereign authority to temporarily detain and search a non-Indian person on a public right-of-way within an Indian reservation for potential violations of state or federal law?
Opinions:
Majority - justice breyer
Yes, a tribal police officer has the authority to temporarily detain and search non-Indian persons traveling on public rights-of-way through a reservation for potential violations of state or federal law. The Court reasoned that this authority falls under the second exception to the general rule that tribes lack inherent sovereign powers over non-members, as established in Montana v. United States. This exception permits tribes to exercise civil authority over non-Indians' conduct on reservation lands when that conduct "threatens or has some direct effect on…the health or welfare of the tribe." Denying tribal officers this authority would significantly hinder tribes' ability to protect themselves against threats like non-Indian drunk drivers, drug transporters, or other criminal offenders on roads within their reservation boundaries. The Court cited its previous acknowledgment in Strate v. A-1 Contractors that it did "not here question the authority of tribal police to patrol roads within a reservation…and to detain and turn over to state officers nonmembers stopped on the highway for conduct violating state law." Furthermore, the authority to search prior to transport is ancillary to the recognized authority of tribal officers to detain offenders and transport them to the proper non-tribal authorities, as noted in Duro v. Reina. This exercise of authority involves enforcing state and federal laws to which non-Indians are already subject, rather than applying tribal laws to non-members, thus mitigating concerns raised in prior cases limiting tribal jurisdiction over non-Indians. The Court also found the Ninth Circuit's previous standards—requiring tribal officers to first determine if a suspect is non-Indian and only allow temporary detention for "apparent" violations—to be unworkable and prone to creating practical difficulties in law enforcement.
Concurring - justice alito
Yes, a tribal police officer has the authority to temporarily detain and search non-Indians on public rights-of-way within a reservation, subject to specific limitations. Justice Alito joined the Court’s opinion with the understanding that it holds that on a public right-of-way primarily patrolled by tribal police within an Indian reservation, a tribal police officer has the authority to (a) stop a non-Indian motorist with reasonable suspicion of a federal or state law violation, (b) conduct a protective search if necessary, and (c) detain the motorist with probable cause for a reasonable time until a non-tribal officer can arrive on the scene. This concurrence serves to clarify the precise scope and limitations of the tribal officer's authority as understood by the concurring Justice.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies and reinforces the scope of tribal inherent sovereignty in law enforcement, particularly concerning non-Indians on public rights-of-way within reservation lands. By firmly placing such authority under the second Montana exception, the Court prioritizes public safety and the practical exigencies of policing in Indian Country, rejecting previous complex and often unworkable standards for tribal officers. This ruling provides tribal police departments with a clear legal basis to address threats to tribal health and welfare from non-Indian conduct, thereby enhancing their ability to maintain order and protect communities within reservation boundaries. It may lead to a reduction in certain types of crime on reservation roads and fewer challenges to evidence gathered by tribal law enforcement against non-Indians in federal or state courts.
