- Joined
- Apr 14, 2008
- Messages
- 13,005
- Reaction score
- 5,739
- Location
- Huntsville, AL (USA)
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
An interesting case is before the Supreme Court concerning policing powers of Native American LE over non-Indians who are detained on tribal lands. For me, the decision is an easy one. If you're travelling through Indian territory even in a state and you've violated the law OR you're suspected of having committed a crime OR there is probably cause to suspect you've committed a crime, Native-American LE should have the right to search, detain and arrest you just like any other police officer even if you're stopped on an inter-state highway that passes through Indian territory.
Let's say, for example, I'm a GA resident travelling along I-20 through AL en-route to TX. I get pulled over in MS. MS State Troopers have the right to stop me, search me, detain me and arrest me depending on the circumstances and the crime I've committed. Why? Because I've crossed over into their jurisdiction - the state of MS. Doesn't matter that I'm from out-of-state. I've committed a crime in the state of MS despite the fact that the crime was committed on an interstate highway. Same concept should apply where Indian territory is concerned. I see no difference.
Should the SC rule differently, it re-enforces the precedent that Native Americans, for example, are only safe while on the Reservation but non-Native Americans can go anywhere and do pretty much anything without consequence. IMO, there are two solutions to such a ruling in favor of non-Native Americans:
1. You designate that strip of interstate roadway "Indian land". Rename that stretch of road "Indian Route (___) same as each state does with rural routes or state highways. This way, Native-America LE has complete jurisdiction over those who use the access route into their lands.
2. Divert traffic on that segment of the interstate around Native American territory. It could still be an interstate highway; it would just take drivers longer to transverse it.
Source: USA Today, "Supreme Court wrestles with complex questions of tribal power arising from late-night traffic stop"
Let's say, for example, I'm a GA resident travelling along I-20 through AL en-route to TX. I get pulled over in MS. MS State Troopers have the right to stop me, search me, detain me and arrest me depending on the circumstances and the crime I've committed. Why? Because I've crossed over into their jurisdiction - the state of MS. Doesn't matter that I'm from out-of-state. I've committed a crime in the state of MS despite the fact that the crime was committed on an interstate highway. Same concept should apply where Indian territory is concerned. I see no difference.
Should the SC rule differently, it re-enforces the precedent that Native Americans, for example, are only safe while on the Reservation but non-Native Americans can go anywhere and do pretty much anything without consequence. IMO, there are two solutions to such a ruling in favor of non-Native Americans:
1. You designate that strip of interstate roadway "Indian land". Rename that stretch of road "Indian Route (___) same as each state does with rural routes or state highways. This way, Native-America LE has complete jurisdiction over those who use the access route into their lands.
2. Divert traffic on that segment of the interstate around Native American territory. It could still be an interstate highway; it would just take drivers longer to transverse it.
Source: USA Today, "Supreme Court wrestles with complex questions of tribal power arising from late-night traffic stop"