AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• A cross-commissioned state police officer, after receiving a dispatch call, stopped a member of the Navajo Tribe on Navajo Nation land for suspected DWI. The officer conducted field sobriety tests, which the defendant failed, and then transported the defendant off the reservation for further testing. The defendant was initially arrested under Navajo law but was later prosecuted under state law for offenses committed both on and off the reservation. The reliability of the Intoxilyzer on the Navajo Nation was questioned, and the local hospital would not conduct blood alcohol content testing, leading to the defendant being taken off-reservation for testing (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that there was no admissible evidence the alleged DWI occurred outside the Navajo Nation, thus the criminal information should be dismissed. Contended that the blood test results and statements made should be excluded because he was removed from the Navajo Nation without extradition, violating tribal sovereignty (para 3).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Countered that the officer was cross-commissioned by the Navajo Division of Public Safety and authorized to investigate and arrest the defendant for DWI. Argued that Navajo extradition procedure did not apply as the defendant was booked into the Shiprock Detention Center on the Navajo Nation. Claimed the evidence of the defendant’s blood alcohol test results were admissible for crimes committed on and off Navajo land, and that the defendant was not arrested on the warrant for crimes committed in Farmington until two years later (para 3).

Legal Issues

• Whether a member of the Navajo Nation may be temporarily transported outside of the Navajo Nation by a cross-commissioned state law enforcement officer to conduct DWI testing without violating the Navajo Nation’s tribal sovereignty or extradition procedures (para 1).
• Whether the district court had personal and subject matter jurisdiction or, in the alternative, whether the admission of the defendant's blood alcohol test results was permissible (para 3).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case to the district court to conduct an analysis of how the cross-commission agreement between the State and the Navajo Nation affects the scope of Officer Schake’s authority under the facts of this case and for any further proceedings consistent with this Opinion (para 12).

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, J. (JONATHAN B. SUTIN, J., J. MILES HANISEE, J., concurring): The appellate court found that the district court did not have the opportunity to review the cross-commission agreement due to its absence from evidence, which was necessary to assess the legal effect of the agreement on the scope of authority of cross-commissioned officers. The court emphasized the importance of considering the written terms of the cross-commission agreement itself for a reasoned legal analysis regarding the officer's authority. The court concluded that the district court's decision was improperly based on witness testimony rather than a legal analysis of the agreement's terms. The appellate court did not reach the defendant's remaining arguments, indicating that the resolution of the threshold issue regarding the cross-commission agreement might be dispositive (paras 4-11).