Inyo County, et al. v. Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Community (05/19/2003)

Questions presented: (1) Whether the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity enables Indian tribes, their gambling casinos and other commercial businesses to prohibit the searching of their property by law enforcement officers for criminal evidence pertaining to the commission of off-reservation state crimes, when the search is pursuant to a search warrant issued upon probable cause. (2) Whether such a search by state law enforcement officers constitutes a violation of the tribe's civil rights that is actionable under 42 U.S.C. 1983. (3) Whether, if such a search is actionable under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the State law enforcement officers who conducted the search pursuant to the warrant are nonetheless entitled to the defense of qualified immunity.

BY ANNA CHADWICK, MEDILL NEWS SERVICE

Something didn't seem right to local law enforcement about activities at the Paiute Palace Casino in Bishop, California.

They suspected Paiute casino employees of committing welfare fraud and sought evidence that three tribe members collected welfare payments for three months while they were employed at the casino.

On March 23, 2000, Inyo County law enforcement obtained a warrant to search records at the casino, a Native American run casino situated near the Nevada border about halfway between Los Angeles and Reno. The casino boasts 300 slots and seven game tables that provide economic lifeblood to the Bishop Paiute Indian Tribe.

The tribe had denied a written request for the personnel files, maintaining that it needed written authorization from the employees in question before releasing their confidential files.

With warrant in hand, authorities used deadbolt cutters to break locks off secured areas in the casino. They proceeded to seize confidential payroll records for 81 tribal casino employees, although the warrant only covered three. Tribe members watched the intrusion and futilely tried to halt it, claiming their sovereign immunity was being violated.

No evidence of wrongdoing was found for the three employees who were investigated and the proceedings were dismissed for lack of probable cause. Still, four months later, the county demanded that the tribe hand over additional employee records.

At that point, the tenuous relationship between the 1600 members of the Bishop Paiute Indian Tribe and local law enforcement reached a breaking point.

On Aug. 4, the Bishop Paiute Tribe filed suit in federal district court, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief against further violations of the tribes sovereign immunity by Inyo County.

The county countered that the warrant was obtained from a judge and the search was perfectly legal. Inyo cited federal law as justification for its actions.

The federal statute, Public Law 280, ostensibly granted California criminal jurisdiction over offenses committed by or against Indians. The law, enacted by Congress in 1953 in an effort to establish order on increasingly lawless Indian reservations, empowered state and local law enforcement agencies to handle law enforcement on reservations in California, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, Wisconsin and Alaska.

The District Court ruled in favor of Inyo County.

Almost two years later, in January 2002, a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel delivered a substantial victory to the tribe. In a unanimous decision, the court ruled that Inyo County violated the sovereign immunity of the tribe when it executed the warrant and broke into casino records.

"At issue is not just the tribes right to protect the confidentiality of its employee records, but the more fundamental right of the tribe not to have its policies undermined by the states and their political subdivisions," wrote Judge Harry Pregerson.

The court ruled that P.L. 280 did not justify the actions of Inyo law enforcement because the statute extends state jurisdiction to individual Indians but not to tribes as a whole.

"Congress neither waived the sovereignty of the tribes, nor granted state jurisdiction over Indian tribes," Pregerson wrote.

When considering the interests of both parties, the court found that the county's interest in preventing welfare fraud could have been done in a less intrusive way than by violating the tribes sovereign immunity.

The 9th Circuit also found that Inyo County could be held liable for the conduct of the district attorney and the sheriff in executing the search warrant against the sovereign tribe.

"Municipalities may be held liable under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for actions which result in a deprivation of constitutional rights," Pregerson wrote.

Because California law states that both the sheriff and district attorney are county officers, and because they both had final decision-making authority in executing the search warrant, using prior precedent, the court found that Inyo County could be found liable.

The court went even one step further and held that the district attorney and sheriff were not entitled to qualified immunity, thereby allowing them to be held personally liable for civil damages.

"A reasonable county officer, executing the search warrant on tribal property at the time the search warrant was executed against the Bishop Paiute Tribe, would have known that the search warrant was being executed outside of his jurisdiction and thus in violation of the Fourth Amendment," Pregerson wrote.

In May 2002, the defendants filed a petition for an en banc review by the full 9th Circuit. It was denied.

"The Ninth Circuit's decision in Bishop Paiute Tribe was a resounding victory for our tribe," said Monty Bengochia, former chairman of the Bishop Paiute Tribal Council. "Now we are faced with the possible outright destruction of our tribal sovereignty if the Supreme Court reviews and decides our case in such a way as to diminish tribal sovereign immunity."

On Dec. 2, 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court accepted review of the case, a case which could have lasting significance both for sovereign Indian Tribes and law enforcement agencies.

The National Sheriffs Association filed a "friend of the court" brief with the Supreme Court and has strong backing from 34 state sheriffs associations.

"It hinders law enforcement and basically subjects the process of public safety to whim and caprice," said Paul Coble, attorney for the California State Sheriffs Association.

Coble maintains that holding law enforcement officials liable will dissuade them from pursuing justice on Indian reservations.

"There is no incentive to investigate given the fact that the 9th Circuit said county officials are civilly liable," Coble said.

On May 19, 2003, the Court reversed and in siding with Inyo County, held that because tribes, like states, are not "citizens" or "persons" under the federal civil rights statute, it does not follow from traditional tribal immunity that the tribe itself may sue to remedy the wrong of a government wrongfully exercising a warrant on its property.

Writing for the Court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted that the result might be different if the suit were brought by a tribal member. However, if the tribal member did sue, the person could not invoke the underlying claim of sovereign tribal immunity.

Attorneys: For Inyo County, et al.:John Douglas Kirby9747 Business Park AvenueSan Diego, CA 92131858-621-6244

For Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Community of the Bishop Colony, et al.:Anna S. Kimber701 B Street13th FloorSan Diego, CA 92101-8194619-232-0441

Ralph R. LePeraPO Box 1819Bishop, CA 93515760-872-2048

Reid P. ChambersSonosky Chambers Sachse, et al.1250 I Street, NW, Suite 1000Washington, DC 20005202-652-0240

Other Attorneys: For U.S.:THEODORE B. OLSONSolicitor General, Counsel of RecordTHOMAS L. SANSONETTIAssistant Attorney GeneralEDWIN S. KNEEDLERDeputy Solicitor GeneralJEFFREY BOSSERT CLARKDeputy Assistant Attorney GeneralBARBARA MCDOWELLAssistant to the Solicitor GeneralELIZABETH ANN PETERSONR. JUSTIN SMITHETHAN G. SHENKMAN