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, Officer Paul Gonzales, stopped Delvin Charlie, a member of the Navajo Tribe, on Navajo Nation land for evading a sobriety checkpoint. After failing field sobriety tests, Charlie was arrested and transported off the reservation for chemical testing, as no certified breath testing machine was available on the reservation. Following the test, Charlie was booked on tribal charges at the Shiprock Detention Center, and state charges were later filed based on his admission of coming from Farmington (paras 2).

Procedural History

• Magistrate Court: Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing Officer Gonzales failed to follow Navajo extradition procedures. Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving the right to appeal on jurisdiction (para 3).
• District Court of San Juan County: Denied Defendant's motion to dismiss or, alternatively, to suppress the alcohol breath test results. Defendant appeals this order (para 3).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that Officer Gonzales's failure to follow Navajo extradition procedures challenged the Navajo Nation's sovereignty and requested dismissal of the case or suppression of the alcohol breath test results due to illegal removal from the reservation (para 3).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Contended that Officer Gonzales was authorized to investigate state and tribal crimes, was permitted by Tribal Police to administer an off-reservation breath alcohol test, and that the temporary removal of Defendant for chemical testing did not constitute extradition or infringe on Navajo sovereignty (para 3).

Legal Issues

• Whether a cross-commissioned state law enforcement officer may temporarily transport a member of the Navajo Nation outside of the Navajo Nation for DWI testing without violating the Navajo Nation’s tribal sovereignty or extradition procedures (para 1).
• Whether the district court erred in denying Defendant's motion to dismiss or, alternatively, to suppress the alcohol breath test results based on the officer's authority under the cross-commission agreement (paras 3, 10-12).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case to the district court to consider the terms of the cross-commission agreement in effect at the time of the investigation and decide how that agreement affects Officer Gonzales’s scope of authority under the facts of this case (para 13).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Judge Linda M. Vanzi, with Judges Jonathan B. Sutin and J. Miles Hanisee concurring, found that the district court did not have the opportunity to review the cross-commission agreement due to its absence from evidence. This review was necessary to assess the legal effect of the agreement on the scope of authority of cross-commissioned officers. The appellate court determined that resolution of the threshold issue regarding the cross-commission agreement's terms and its impact on Officer Gonzales's authority was essential for a reasoned legal analysis and could be dispositive of the case. Consequently, the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion (paras 1, 10-13).