Facebook Twitter Email
THURSDAY, AUGUST 29, 2002

In another limit to federal powers over Indian Country, a federal appeals court on Tuesday dismissed a criminal indictment against a tribal member.

Curtis A. Belgarde was accused of breaking into a state-owned building located on the Fort Belknap Reservation in Montana. He was charged under the Major Crimes Act, which gives the federal government jurisdiction over crimes committed by Indians on Indian land.

But a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said the charges have to be thrown out. The law applies to crimes against persons not buildings, the court noted.

"[A] state agency is not a person within the meaning of the Major Crimes Act," Circuit Judge Ronald M. Gould, wrote for the majority.

The ruling follows a decision made by the court n a similar case. On June 21, a divided three-judge panel dismissed criminal charges for a break-in at a Bureau of Indian Affairs building on the Fort Peck Reservation in Montana.

But the two cases don't necessarily mean the federal government has no recourse. Other laws apply to so-called "victimless" crimes, the court has pointed out.

Not all see it that way, however. In a dissent for the Fort Peck case, Circuit Judge Melvin Brunetti said the ruling creates a "loophole" where crimes committed by Indians would go unpunished.

A judge in yesterday's case expressed similar sentiments but agreed that the charges should be dropped anyway.

"Despite the array of authority excluding governments from the meaning of 'person,'" wrote Circuit Judge John T. Noonan, "it seems to me fundamentally sub-versive of this federal criminal law to construe it so as to leave either federal or state agencies on Indian reservations without federal or state protection against depredation.

The Major Crimes Act was first passed in 1885 and represented a significant intrusion on tribal sovereignty. Up until then, tribes had exclusive jurisdiction over crimes committed by Indians on Indian land, a right the Supreme Court affirmed in the historic Ex Parte Crow Dog case of 1883.

The incident caused an uproar among whites when they learned the killing of a Sioux chief was settled through traditional means.

The 9th Circuit affects tribes in the states of California, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Montana, Idaho, Nevada and Alaska.

Get the Case:
US v. BELGARDE, No. 01-30243/4 (9th Cir. August 27, 2002)

Related Decisions:
Ex parte Crow Dog, 109 U.S. 556 (1883)

Relevant Links:
Indian Country Jurisdiction - http://tribaljurisdiction.tripod.com

Related Stories:
Court tosses federal charges in BIA crime case (Tribal Law 06/24)