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

• Two Navajo Nation members, Delvin Charlie and Rudy Norberto, were suspected of driving while intoxicated (DWI) from state land onto the Navajo reservation and were stopped by New Mexico State Police officers on the reservation. Both were transported off the reservation for chemical testing, booked on tribal charges, and later prosecuted in state court under state law. They filed motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing that the officers' failure to follow Navajo extradition protocols violated tribal sovereignty (paras 3-4).

Procedural History

• State v. Charlie, No. 32,504, mem. op. (N.M. Ct. App. Dec. 4, 2013) (non-precedential): The district court denied Charlie's motion to dismiss.
• State v. Norberto, No. 32,353, mem. op. (N.M. Ct. App. Dec. 4, 2013) (non-precedential): The district court denied Norberto's motion to dismiss.
• The New Mexico Court of Appeals reversed and remanded both cases back to their respective district courts (para 8).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendants: Argued that the State Police officers' failure to follow Navajo extradition protocols precluded state court prosecution and that, despite the officers being cross-commissioned, they still had to follow Navajo extradition procedures for transporting Navajo suspects off the reservation for chemical testing (paras 4-6).
• State: Introduced testimony from the arresting officers, who were cross-commissioned by the Navajo authorities, to enforce Navajo law on the reservation. The State argued that the officers were authorized by the Navajo Nation to transport members off the reservation for chemical testing, and thus, tribal sovereignty was not infringed by the failure to follow extradition procedures (paras 5-6).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the district courts were required to review the actual cross-commission agreement between the State of New Mexico and the Navajo Nation before deciding whether a cross-commissioned officer had the authority to temporarily transport a member off the Navajo Nation for chemical testing intended for use in tribal and state court proceedings (para 8).

Disposition

• The Supreme Court of New Mexico reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and remanded both cases back to the Court of Appeals to consider other legal issues raised by Defendants (para 8).

Reasons

• Per Curiam: The Supreme Court found that Defendants did not dispute the State Police officers' testimonies or the affidavit offered by the State, which established both the existence and the scope of the cross-commission agreement between the Navajo Nation and the State Police. Defendants also did not argue that a written agreement was required to establish the existence or scope of a cross-commission agreement. The Court concluded that the Court of Appeals exceeded the scope of review by reversing and remanding the district courts' orders for an analysis into the scope of the cross-commission agreement. The Supreme Court determined that extradition protocols were not implicated as Defendants were transported off the reservation for chemical tests as part of an investigation of Navajo crimes and were never released into the custody of another jurisdiction. The Court also noted that Defendants were not transported off the reservation for delivery into the custody of state officials but as part of an investigation of Navajo crimes, thus no extradition occurred. The Court concluded that the testimony regarding the Navajo Nation enabling cross-commissioned State Police officers to transport Navajos off the reservation for chemical testing was unopposed, and Defendants' argument for lack of jurisdiction erroneously relied on the purported need to follow Navajo extradition procedures (paras 9-15).