START A PETITION 27,000,000 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x

ISP Can Arrest Indians on Reservation Highway


Society & Culture  (tags: Indians, Native Americans, American Indians, Tribal Government, culture, society, americans, crime, ethics, freedoms, government, humans, interesting, law, news, police, rights, safety, usa, abuse, dishonesty )

Kat
- 2176 days ago - localnews8.com
BOISE, Idaho (AP) - Idaho state troopers can arrest American Indians on highways where they cross reservation land without violating a tribe's sovereignty, according to a recent Idaho Court of Appeals opinion.



Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.

Comments

kat yazzie (400)
Monday January 5, 2009, 7:49 am
Please let me know if I need to post this, will you? Thanks!
 

kat yazzie (400)
Monday January 5, 2009, 8:07 am
This just doesn't seem right...What do you guys think?
 

Surunatik WTF (38)
Monday January 5, 2009, 8:31 am
The tribal officers turned him over to the State troopers first. It was stated that there was shared jurisdiction of the highway. I think 'drunk driver' guy was willing to jeopardize the safety of others, and then became just another litigious member of society. What are the laws on the Res re drunk driving?
 

kat yazzie (400)
Monday January 5, 2009, 8:47 am
Heya Suruna! It's different on each Rez. I am definitely in favor of stopping drunk drivers and getting them off the road!
 

CHIEF DUBIE (213)
Monday January 5, 2009, 8:59 am
If the Indian reservation honors the constitution, than it was probably an illegal arrest!!! The 5th amendment grants us the right against "self incrimination" are they using part of his to testify against himself??? Was he compelled to surrender his hair, breath, blood...for them to have this evidence against him??? Than it is the same treason, that is going on outside of the res., but if the constitution is valid on the res. as it is not valid outside of it, than he has a case!!!
The war of drugs, and drunks, is unconstitutional, but since the assassination of J.F.K., the constitution has become null and void for the people!!! There is no justice when the government is the one crying victim, when they are already judge, jury and executioner, but wait, they just might defend you also,??? Or maybe not???
 

Past Member (0)
Monday January 5, 2009, 10:12 am
Noted thanks Kat.
 

C Littlestar (56)
Monday January 5, 2009, 11:48 am
Don't think it's a Good Idea to put someones address and phone number up, but that's just my opinion!

As for the busting situation...they just made LEGAL what they've been doing ILLEGALLY for DECADES !!!
 

. (0)
Monday January 5, 2009, 12:48 pm
noted thank you
 

Sir Walk F. (124)
Monday January 5, 2009, 1:11 pm
Is it a state funded highway? seems like that's the issue. Wouldnt that give the state some jurisdiction?

Or has this traditionally been a hands-off area for state troopers?

 

Lone Wolf (1423)
Monday January 5, 2009, 1:16 pm
I FEEL THAT THIS WAN'T RIGHT SOON THEY WILL JUST COME ON THE RESERVATION AND JUST ARREST ANYONE IT'S VERY UNFAIR
 

Debra L. (5)
Monday January 5, 2009, 1:29 pm
I don't pretend that I know a thing about tribal laws or the state of Idaho for that matter, but if he WAS in fact drunk, and driving he is at fault either way. Realizing there have been mountains of injustice to the native American, I can't see anyone being allowed to get away with DUI because of territory. It kills innocent people.
 

William B. (9)
Monday January 5, 2009, 2:53 pm
I see a problem here that I see every single time anyone is arrested. People in the 21st century america are so conditioned by the powers that be that we might as well change the pledge of allegiance to "One nation under GOVERNMENT"
What happened to "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law"?
Somone gets arrested and automatically everyone jumps to the conclusion that they are guilty because they were arrested.
NO NO NO NO NO !!!
I don't know that this guy was drunk, you don't know that he was drunk and even if he was that doesn't exuse the state from practicing unreasonable searchs and seisures. If we give up our freedoms for a small measure of security then we deserve, and will get neither !!
If one person is guilty before being proved guilty in a court of law, then we are ALL guilty and might as well throw the constitution away and bow down to the empire!
Chief is right, our founders included the 5th amendment for this very reason, if you are forced to incriminate yourself when you are accused with a crime then we dont have justice, we have fascism. NO VICTIM, NO CRIME!!
As far as the state having jurisdiction because the states highway runs through Indian territory; doesn't this destroy the little soveriegnty left to these people? The highway is in THEIR territory, that makes the highway THEIR territory I don't give a flying flip who paid for it.
I understand peoples concern for public safety but please think about it; our freedoms and constituion should be AT LEAST as important as our public safety because without them we do not have safety at all.
We cannot expect the govt to "protect" us from cradle to grave and keep this our democratic republic as well.
 

Pete Conrads (91)
Monday January 5, 2009, 3:49 pm
Thank you for sharing this thought provoking story Kat.
Warm regards, Namaste
 

Michael Owens (1647)
Monday January 5, 2009, 5:20 pm
The Law has its people to pick on to
 

Henry P. (171)
Monday January 5, 2009, 5:25 pm
Thanks For sharing Kat.
 

CHIEF DUBIE (213)
Monday January 5, 2009, 5:46 pm
No where in the constitution, does it state, that we need to be protected from ourselves!!! Drunks don't kill, vehicles do!!! People act as though every single accident, is caused by illegal drugs and alcohol, that is but yellow journalism/ propaganda!!! Proportionally, I'm willing to bet that they are actually safer drivers, than even,your smug tea totalers!!!
Drunks are being accused of a crime, or even murder, without ever doing anything, it's just another case of reach out and rob someone, by forcing people to surrender their rights, if everyone pled the 5th, the courts would be tied up for ever, that is what our elected officials do, and you just don't see them in court!!!
I once heard that the president of M.A.D.D. got a D.W.I. and she told then that that was only suppose to pertain to men--- just one faction against the other---just another power play!!!
The constitution also states that the roadways shall not be restricted in any way shape or form, and that go's for plates and drivers licenses, insurance, and sobriety check points...WHERE IS "Z" PAPERS!!!
According to the gossip up at the bar, women, here in Salem, don't get D.W.I., they just have sex with the cops!!! Just another law turning us into whores and prostitutes, people actually sell their souls to get out of trouble, and would even set up their own mothers!!! Divide and conquer, do you "NOT-SEE", that, that is actually what the law is doing!!!
What kind of justice system, would actually feed non-violent people, to sexual offenders, as sport, the punishment do not fit the supposed crime, and anyone who believes that it is, should be force-fed to the homo-factory themselves, you can't smoke a dubie, or drink and drive, or plant a seed... but you can sure get raped in the name of justice, robbed in the name of justice, disenfranchised in the name of justice, but how long, my Lord, before we have justice in the name of justice???
 

kat yazzie (400)
Monday January 5, 2009, 6:31 pm
Thanks for your input, Chief. But the real issue in this piece is a Tribal land/rights issue. I am in complete agreement with William on that count!
 

Donn M. (56)
Monday January 5, 2009, 9:38 pm
I'm just glad someone got him off the road. The tribal vs. state jurisdiction is complex, it depends in part on who committed the offense(indian or non-indian), whether it was civil or criminal offense, status of the reservation land(indian owned or not), agreements between tribe and state or county as to cross-deputization, etc. Not just a simple matter of the highway crossing tribal land giving the tribe jurisdiction.
 

Madeleine L. (51)
Monday January 5, 2009, 10:45 pm
Right on William B.!!
 

Madeleine L. (51)
Monday January 5, 2009, 10:49 pm
"Chief", sorry but there is no logic at all or backup to your allegations. I have been around for 59 years, and remember when being drunk was an 'excuse" to get off from ANY crime. It took a long hard battle to make people responsible for their own choices and behaviour. No time to go back to the bad ole' days. They were not fun...
 

CHIEF DUBIE (213)
Tuesday January 6, 2009, 8:54 am
No time to go back to the constitution, is that what your saying??? I have driven millions of miles drunk, and or stoned, I probably would have become a highway shooter otherwise, I never got into an accident, while I was impaired, but I was once rear ended by a woman reading a book, so should I now be against books and women???
The tribes made a treaty with the forked tongues, that land does not belong to the tribes any longer, it is now under the jurisdiction of the calvary!!!
Are Indians allowed to drive drunk on the reservation roads??? If so, they should be allowed to drive on drunk on all reservation land, but his case is over jurisdiction, are the tribal police allowed to give tickets on the state road??? Just because the government is exempt from it's own laws, do not give Indians the right to be exempt, from their own laws, or anyone else's, was he so drunk that he was a safety hazard??? Or did he get pulled over just because he was an Indian, and then forced to testify against himself???
It's legal to be impaired on pharmacutical drugs, if you have a prescription!!! How can you justify saying that we need to be held accountable for our actions, if it was not our actions, that we are being punished for, but an unconstitutional war against freedom, driven by fear, superiority, greed, and sexual domination, I say that if you kill, maim, or hurt someone while intoxicated, that you should be persecuted to the letter of the law, otherwise leave us be, if the roads are that dangerous, outlaw them, go back to horses, and outlaw vehicles!!! People, and animals die on the road daily, and over half of the accidents, are caused by sober people, so if we go by statistics, than sober drivers should be outlawed, do your home work, there is no IQ test to get a licence, I see stupid drivers everyday, but that's legal, I love my wife with all of my heart, but her driving scares the living crap right out of me, but I let her drive, because I am the designated drunk, and I have to be drunk to even ride with her, kid on cell phones, seniors on heavy drugs, cops speeding to get to the donut shop!!! Throw every drunk in prison, but it won't make the roads any safer, they will just blame, caffeine, smoking, radios, cell phones, P.M.S.!!! drunks ARE PEOPLE/CITIZENS ALSO, and if the law will not provide, alternative transportation for them, then put a drunk light on their car, and learn defensive driving, you just keep on excluding everyone from, liberty and justice for all, until America is but a memory, go watch some more Oprah, and Springer, and keep tearing apart the weakest links of society, until we have no more society at all!!!
 

kat yazzie (400)
Tuesday January 6, 2009, 12:56 pm
Would you guys please also report Past Member's obscene language? THANKS!
 

Warren Motter (1055)
Tuesday January 6, 2009, 1:52 pm
The Supreme Court, one would hope, would disagree with the Idaho local yocals.
 

William B. (9)
Tuesday January 6, 2009, 2:49 pm
Donni,of course Tribal Vs. State jurisdiction is complex; for a REASON. The powers that be want it to be as complex and confusing and tied up with red tape as possible because while the public official stance is that the government "does what it can" to allow native peoples to have and keep what is rightfully theirs, in reality it is simply the latest chapter in the war of genocide and oppression waged on these people for the past 400 + years. They can't outright return to the "bad ol days" and storm the reservations with soldiers without a massive public outcry, but they can use the same tactics of psychological, economic and red tape warfare that they are using on ALL peoples all over the world. If you disagree then ask the Lakota why they seceded from the union last year. Ask Mr. Cheney why Guantanamo isn't located within the lower 48. Ask Mr Bush why congress never declared war on Iraq. Ask any of your congressmen why they never read the Patriot Act before they signed it. Ask any of the millions arrested for dwis after they drank 2 beers if they think anyone was made safer for it.
I'm not saying it IS a simple matter, I'm saying it SHOULD be a simple matter. It's THEIR territory, therefore it should be THEIR JURISDICTION !
Leonard Peltier can tell you all about what the state and federal govt. thinks of native sovereignty, hes been in jail for 20 + years for a gunfight on the Pine Ridge reservation with the FBI, in which all other parties were found not guilty on grounds of self-defense. It was never proven that Peltier fired the shot that killed an FBI agent.
We learn in school of the horrible oppression and genocide waged on the natives of this land in the 17th and 18th centuries but are led to believe that "it was long ago". In reality, it never ended, those in power simply changed tactics and now WE ARE ALL BEING OPPRESSED !
This is supposed to be the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave, but we have been conned into giving up our freedoms for supposed safety and security because we're all scared silly !
Let's be brave once again and realize that with freedom comes the responsibility of taking care of ourselves and that the dangers of living with other free people are greatly outweighed by the dangers of not being free at all.
 

CHIEF DUBIE (213)
Tuesday January 6, 2009, 3:29 pm
Right on William!!!
I once lived in San Ygnacio Texas, it had a river running through it, it was on the Rio Grandee river, half on each side, not only did a river run through it, the U.S./ Mexican border, ran down the center of the river, this once peaceful, thriving town was divided not only by nature, but by governments!!! The old customs house has been closed for sometime now, so it is now illegal to cross the river there, and the federally regularly patrol the border, and if you choose to go to the other side by car, you have to drive 36 miles to Laredo, cross the border, then drive 40 miles, to get to the other side of San Ygnacio!!! I don't know how many families, are still on both sides of the river, but it would be hell, just to scream at each other across the river!!!
My point is that it reminded me of the Berlin wall, is that what this highway will come to represent to this tribe: "AND A HIGHWAY RAN THROUGH IT"!!!
 

Donn M. (56)
Wednesday January 7, 2009, 8:56 am
I disagree William, you can't turn a complex issue of law into a simple one just because you think that's the way it should be. Lots of reservation land isn't owned by the tribe, or individual indians. Jurisdiction is worked out between the tribes, feds, and states, and counties. If the tribe and state have agreed to shared jurisdiction of this highway, then the ruling is correct. Everyone is aware of past injustices, they truly have no bearing on this particular issue. If tribes really want complete jurisdiction on roads crossing Indian-owned land on the reservation, then maybe they should start building and maintaining them themselves.
 

CHIEF DUBIE (213)
Wednesday January 7, 2009, 10:18 am
If the only way for drunken Indians, to get from one side of the RES. to the other, is by using the state road, than it is entrapment, and poor design with that in mind!!! Either give them private access roads, that cut under, or go over the highway, or exemption from the rule!!!
Why is it legal, to push someone over the edge, but illegal to be the one being pushed???
 

William B. (9)
Wednesday January 7, 2009, 4:59 pm
I disagree with you Donni, we can and should turn complex issues of laws into simple ones. Just because tribes work out jurisdiction with feds, states and counties because they are forced to by the psychological, economic and red tape tactics used against them doesn't mean that this is right or "correct".
If you believe past injustices have no bearing on this issue, then you are a victim yourself of psychological warfare.
You believe that this matter is just part of the confusing complex system of law that is necessary and unavoidable in your eyes.
Current jurisdiction is a direct extension of past injustices.
Are you aware of jurisdiction involving your own personal liberties?
Are you aware that the feds, if they so choose, because of "jurisdiction" given to them by legislation such as the Patriot Act, can enter your home without your knowledge and plant surveilance devices or even grab you up and detain you with no right to trial or even being charged at all for any length of time they so desire with no explanation or even awareness that you have been taken given to your family?
Past injustices have total bearing on this matter because this injustice is simply the latest chapter in a long and brutal campaign of injustices.
The point is Donni, is that the more complex, confusing and red tape ridden our system of law, the more that those in power can control, use and oppress us.
Of course psychological warfare tactics are very efffective in blinding citizens and spreading apathy and consent, and so you are constantly bombarded by your TV, schools, workplaces, newspapers, radio, and culture in general that a complex, confusing system of law is necessary and unavoidable.
One day we might wake up to a death squad putting a boot in our face and chains on our wrists and while we will have the vague understanding that they are acting within the "law" we will have no knowledge of those laws themselves or WHY they have the power to do so.
We need the government and corporations to get out of our lives, we need our laws kept simple and understandable, and we need to take back our lives from a complex, confusing system of law that does nothing to serve us as a people, but rather only serves to put power in the hands of the government that is supposed to serve the people.
The ruling is not correct, what is correct is for all native tribes to be given total and complete jurisdiction over territory that is completely and unarguably theirs. This is what sovereignty means. If we allow the state police to have jurisdiction over a "state" highway that runs through these peoples territory, then these people have no sovereignty at all.
If you believe we do not have and should not have the power to change the way we are governed in way that benifits the people instead of the government then shred the constitution, turn the TV up full blast and be happy with being told what to do , when to do it, and how to think about it.
I would recommend reading The Declaration of Independence for insight into the necessary and unavoidable power of a system of complex and confusing "laws"
 

CHIEF DUBIE (213)
Wednesday January 7, 2009, 6:44 pm
If I am not mistaken, this has all happened before!!! Westward expansion, only wanted an easement through Indian territory, for settlers could go to California, these roads, not only divided Indian territory, they consumed them, with jurisdiction!!! What is a road without a junction??? What is a junction without connecting roads? What good are connecting roads, if they lead no where??? Divide and conquer, divide it in half, then devour both halves, from within!!! The treaties were bogus then, and they still aren't worth the paper their written on!!! It was the forked tongue that won the west!!!
 

Donn M. (56)
Thursday January 8, 2009, 12:09 am
Even with their own roads, Chief Dubie, how will drunken Indians escape the tribal police?

William, we are ALL forced by psychological,economic, and red-tape tactics to deal with each other, Indian, non-Indian,foreign,US, that is politics. Much as we might like simple rules with little governmental interference, the fact is we can not deal with each other without a whole slew of laws delineating what is and is not acceptable in our particular society, giving us recourse for injustices, protecting us from each other, etc. Ever since we began banding together as clans, and tribes, and then into cities, and then countries, we've been forced into more and more complicated relationships which require ever more complicated laws. Can we, and should we simplify any laws we can? Absolutely! But,reservations, and the Indians on them, are part of the US, part of states, part of counties, not just little entities set apart with no connections to the outside world, and each one of them have to work together to get along. And sovereignty is more than control over territory, it is contol over people, self-governance. You do not take sovereignty away by merely sharing jurisdiction over a state highway. It is a negotiated and mutual benefit for both parties, and makes the reservation a safer place when Indians can arrest non-Indians, and vice-versa. Reservations are made up of non-Indians too, and also include private property, these are not subject to tribal law, nor should they ever be, so total and complete jurisdiction by tribes over reservations will never happen.

I do certainly believe we have the right and power to change the laws to benefit the people. We have a government by the people,of the people, for the people, we just have to decide as a people what it is we really want, and put forth the effort to attain it.
 

Christine vaudrin rios (376)
Thursday March 26, 2009, 7:55 am
noted. Not right Kat. Idaho Troopers should NOT be allowed to cross into the reservation and take authority over ANYTHING.
 
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story


Loading Noted By...Please Wait

 

 
Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of Care2.com or its affiliates.