The Indian Civil Rights Act prohibits "unreasonable searches and seizures" by tribal police officers, a California appeals court ruled last week.
In a unanimous decision, the Third Appellate District Court threw out evidence seized by tribal officers on the Jackson Rancheria. The three-judge panel said ICRA protects people -- Indians and non-Indians alike -- from unreasonable searches and seizures.
The case arose when tribal officers searched the car of Gilbert Ramirez. They found methamphetamine, heroin and marijuana in the vehicle.
Since Ramirez is non-Indian, the officers called Amador County. Citing large enough quantities of meth and the other drugs, the county prosecuted Ramirez with possession with intent to distribute.
But Ramirez moved to exclude the evidence, arguing the officers had no basis to search his car. The county responded that the U.S. Constitution's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures does not apply in Indian Country.
A lower court sided with Ramirez. The county, now joined by the state attorney general's office, appealed and again claimed the Constitution doesn't apply on reservations.
The Third Appellate District Court disagreed, citing the legislative history of ICRA to "impose upon the Indian governments the same restrictions applicable presently to the Federal and State governments" such as the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures
"Thus, by act of Congress, Indian tribal governments have no more power to conduct unreasonable searches and seizures than do the federal and state governments under the Fourth Amendment," the court said.
Get the Story:
Casino visit leads to Constitutional sparring
(The Stockton Record 4/3)
Get the Decision:
People v. Ramirez (March 28, 2007)
Related Stories
Joe Garcia: Tribal justice systems not a 'quirk' (2/12)
WSJ: Indian Civil Rights Act a little-known 'quirk' (2/1)
