Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 27

Thread: Puyallup Tribal Police may need to be updated on RCWs

  1. #1
    Regular Member Just Us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    248

    Post imported post

    1/9/10 12:30 a.m.

    The Reservation Outpost in Fife. I went in to grab some milk and a pizza pocket. I've been going to that store for 5 years, the gal there didn't say anything about it. Puyallup Tribal Police came out of the bathroom and up to the counter behind me. I paid for my stuff and went on my way. The officer followed me out as I was about to get into my car. He mentioned I should probably keep it covered and he was sure I had a concealed pistol permit. I responded that this is a OC state, he disagreed. I talked to him a couple seconds longer when another car pulled up on the other side of the parking lot. He told me this guy might know a little bit more on it. He called the officer over by radio. The 2nd officer corrected him and agreed with me, but he suggested I keep covered with my shirt, which would've made a print as I did mention that to them. I also brought up the 2nd amendment. I asked them about tribal laws, he said OC is prohibited. I told them I would look into more of the tribal laws. The 2nd officer is also pro-gun. They didn't asked to see it or anything of that nature. I was able to keep it on my person the whole time.

    I met a guy earlier that day that walked out of the same store, he OCs everywhere including the Poodle Dog restaurant. Fife Police go there all the time and have never talked to him.

    Do we know about the tribal side. I would like more information or directions onwhere to go. Maybe tribal officers need more education. I would like to get a couple pamphlets. Possibly post on that stores bulletin board.



    This is a post I put on South Sound OC topic. I failed to add the officer stated OC or firearm aren't permitted on tribal land it could confiscated, unlike city or state the tribal police don't give firearms back.



    Any Insight?? :X

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sedro, Washington, USA
    Posts
    533

    Post imported post

    Sorry, no personal insight here, just my speculation.

    I would think that state preemption applies but I don't know jack about tribal bla bla yadda law.


    My guess is that they "quote" so called "tribal law" all the time to make up laws that serve their every whim. Because few know tribal law I bet they get away with it all the time.

  3. #3
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953

    Post imported post

    If you are talking about Puyallup "Trust Land" then consider this. The Puyallups are not a "Public Law 280 Tribe". Essentially this means that they don't have the ability to administer their own Criminal Code. They may have a PD but it only has jurisdiction over their Tribal Members. That said, they do have the right to tresspass anyone they don't want on their property.

    Doesn't really matter what State Law does or doesn't allow, if they don't want you OC'ing, or even CC'ing for that matter, you will have to either cease, leave, or face the local authorities that they will call to deal with you.

    BTW, this doesn't apply to all tribes in WA. The Tulalips, for example, have been granted enforcement rights over their land and members under PL-280. In order to deal with non-indians on their land, their Tribal Police Officers are "cross-sworn" as Snohomish County Deputies and CAN arrest non-indians on their "res".
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  4. #4
    Regular Member Just Us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    248

    Post imported post

    amlevin wrote:
    If you are talking about Puyallup "Trust Land" then consider this. The Puyallups are not a "Public Law 280 Tribe". Essentially this means that they don't have the ability to administer their own Criminal Code. They may have a PD but it only has jurisdiction over their Tribal Members. That said, they do have the right to tresspass anyone they don't want on their property.

    Doesn't really matter what State Law does or doesn't allow, if they don't want you OC'ing, or even CC'ing for that matter, you will have to either cease, leave, or face the local authorities that they will call to deal with you.

    BTW, this doesn't apply to all tribes in WA. The Tulalips, for example, have been granted enforcement rights over their land and members under PL-280. In order to deal with non-indians on their land, their Tribal Police Officers are "cross-sworn" as Snohomish County Deputies and CAN arrest non-indians on their "res".
    So your saying Basically Fife PD or Tacoma PD would need to be called. If they say no, I should probably keep it covered and found out the boundaries. kind of sucks because I work around the ports.

  5. #5
    Regular Member BrenTen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Kingston, Washington, USA
    Posts
    73

    Post imported post

    I want to know if they can seize my property!



  6. #6
    Regular Member NavyMike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Eastside, Washington, USA
    Posts
    196

    Post imported post

    The Puyallup Tribe is federally recognized -RCW 43.06.465:

    (c) "Indian tribe" or "tribe" means the PuyallupTribe of Indians, which is a federally recognized Indian tribe located within the geographical boundaries of the state of Washington.

    Puyallup is a partial-PL 280 tribe - Background info to EHB 2746:

    Partial-PL 280 tribes have their own tribalgovernments including comprehensive court systems and codes and law enforcement agencies.

    Under Federal Law - If you are not a tribal member then you are not subject to tribal law.

    Tribal police officers can be certified to enforce WA State law over non tribal members - RCW 10.92.020. The same RCW requires the tribal nation to carry liability insurance and precludes them from using sovereign immunity as a defence from civil actions brought under federal or state law.

    Tribal governments must carry liability insurance and waive sovereign immunity to the extent of such coverage so as to allow a civil action for damages in the event a tribal police officer acting in the capacity of a state peace officer commits a tort.

    Puyallup Tribal police have a mutual aid agreement with City of Tacoma, City of Fife and Pierce County.

    Their police attend the basic four month training program at the Police Academy, Artesia, New Mexico. They also complete the Washington State Training Commissions Law Enforcement Equivalency Academy. I'm guessing this meets the certification requirement under RCW 10.92.020

    I can't find any evidence to confirm or refute that the tribe has waived immunity or carries liability insurance in order for them to be certified to enforce WA law against non-tribal members.

    To answer the question, "Can they seize my property?":

    Not if acting under tribal law because you are not a tribal member. However, can you sue for redress if they do? - Unlikely, because you have no recourse to the tribal court and they would cite sovereign immunity if you tried to sue them in federal or state court.

    If acting under state law (And assuming they were certified, insured, waived their sovereign rights etc) then no - they can't just seize your property (Without due process) and you could sue in State court. The problem is that you'd have to prove that they were acting under the color of state law when they seized your property. That might be difficult if they don't actually charge you with anything; but, just confiscate your gun and kick you off the reservation.

    To see a good example of what happens when you fall into this grey area, take a look at:

    www.checkpointusa.org
    cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscripti catapultas habebunt

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    265

    Post imported post

    To answer the question, "Can they seize my property?": Not if acting under tribal law because you are not a tribal
    Actually, I think it's the exact opposite. The reason they would be seizing property is because it violates the tribe's law. Once it is determined that the tribe's court has no jurisdiction over you, I would expect that your property would be returned if it is lawfully yours.


  8. #8
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    Sounds like the officers were friendly but misinformed (about state carry), didn't sound like they were anti gun. Some members here have open carried and had conversations with tulalip officers and have no problem. I have had no problems on my tribe Lummi ( am not an enrolled member but am descendancy). But I am usually discreet about it.

    Yes they have no authority to detain or arrest you now, but can call the Sherrif or Troopers and have them do it for them. If they don't want you there you are trespassed and then can be charged with that in the future.

    Now this all might be changing soon for many of Washington's federally recognized tribes. They are working on and it looks very likely they will get full policing powers to arrest, detain, and try anyone who commits infractions or crimes on native nations.

    My suggestion is "respect", there are a lot more gray areas, and personal politicking on tribal lands and with tribal members. Prove you are a friend and a good guy and that goes a long way, to the lattitude you will recieve. Have a conversation if comfortable enough with the tribal police chief.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    265

    Post imported post

    Yes they have no authority to detain or arrest you now, but can call the Sherrif or Troopers and have them do it for them.
    That's not the case at all. Suquamish vs. Oliphant ruled that the tribe can't prosecute non-members. There have been several cases where Washington courts have upheld arrests of non-natives. Lummi Tribe was one that exercised this quite a bit.






  10. #10
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    Ok I didn't word my post right with the for them part. The sherrif and trooper can expel you or remove you for them. The same as they can do it for property owners.This doesn't mean you won't get prosecuted for committing crimes just means the tribe can't as of now.

    Because of federal treaties certain tribes will soon be able to arrest and prosecute you for committing crimes on their soveriegn land.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    265

    Post imported post

    Ok I didn't word my post right with the for them part. The sherrif and trooper can expel you or remove you for them. The same as they can do it for property owners.This doesn't mean you won't get prosecuted for committing crimes just means the tribe can't as of now.

    The tribes don't need a trooper or sheriff to expel others for them. They will put you in the back of their patrol car cuffed and do it themselves. There was a case in La Conner a few years back where the tribal police expelled a non-member Indian by driving him to eastern washington and dropping him off. Get caught driving DUI on a rez, you're likely to end up in the back of a tribal patrol car cuffed and under arrest. You just won't be prosecuted in tribal court if you aren't an enrolled Indian.


    Here's a Lummi case:
    A Lummi Nation tribal police officer witnessed a motorist onthe reservation driving at night with high beams and drifting across the center divider.Did the officer have authority to continue pursuing this vehicle beyond thereservation’s borders and then detain the non-Indian driver until authorities withjurisdiction to arrest for DUI1 arrived? This is an issue of first impression. We holdtribal officers have inherent sovereign authority and statutory authority to continue“fresh pursuit” of motorists who break traffic laws on the reservation and then driveoff the reservation. Therefore we affirm the trial court.
    style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #f8f8f8"http://turtletalk.wordpress.com/2009...e-reservation/





  12. #12
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    I'm on blackberry so trying to keep posts short. That case you mentioned is a partial victory. What I am saying and stressing is the whole jail and prosecuting will probably change soon, for tribes in washington with federal treaties.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  13. #13
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291

    Post imported post

    Simple fix to all of this....

    Write a letter to the Tribal Judge, inform him of what transpired. Attach copies of the various training bulletins. The issue WILL be resolved.


    Chief Judge
    Darwin Longfox
    Associate Judge
    Francis Lamebull
    Phone:
    (253) 680-5585
    Fax: (253) 680-5599
    Mailing Address:
    1638 E. 29th Street
    Tacoma, WA 98404


  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    250

    Post imported post

    sudden valley gunner wrote:
    If they don't want you there you are trespassed and then can be charged with that in the future.
    Really? So if I own 100 acres in White Swan on the Yakima Res, prime pheasant and quail country and have my loaded shotgun and .45 on my hip and they don't like it, they can expel me from my own property which is on their reservation? With my WA Hunting License, my CPL which isnt required if i'm open carrying, and I have alsobought the Yakima Hunting License too? WOW

    Is that so? Please cite it! Hmmmmmmmmmmm me thinks...... Well, I better not say.

    XD

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    265

    Post imported post

    Really? So if I own 100 acres in White Swan on the Yakima Res, prime pheasant and quail country and have my loaded shotgun and .45 on my hip and they don't like it, they can expel me from my own property which is on their reservation? With my WA Hunting License, my CPL which isnt required if i'm open carrying, and I have alsobought the Yakima Hunting License too? WOW

    Not an apple to apple comparison. Try and seach engine queery on the phrase "Tribal emergency exclusion power"






  16. #16
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    Wow xd a bit of a tangent and nothing to do with what we are talking about.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  17. #17
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953

    Post imported post

    There was a case in La Conner a few years back where the tribal police expelled a non-member Indian by driving him to eastern washington and dropping him off.
    I kind of like it. There are some I wish our regular law officers would do this with when they are caught DWSF (Driving While $h!t Faced). Instead of Eastern WA, make it somewhere East of Billings, MT. Do this at least until the State decides that DUI is serious and starts confiscating cars from those that are chronic offenders.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  18. #18
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    The case may be that they may expel you, but if they want to trespass you or feel the state needs to be aware of your activities and want to prosecute you, they call the Sherrif or trooper. Just like a private business would.

    XD you did bring up some interesting points. I have no clue how they would handle someone who was breaking tribal laws but owned land on a tribal nation. I know as far as my business goes I sign documentation that to work on tribal land, tribal courts have precedence over any moderation or legal issues that may arise. I would much rather have them handle it than the state.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    XD45PlusP wrote:
    sudden valley gunner wrote:
    If they don't want you there you are trespassed and then can be charged with that in the future.
    Really? So if I own 100 acres in White Swan on the Yakima Res, prime pheasant and quail country and have my loaded shotgun and .45 on my hip and they don't like it, they can expel me from my own property which is on their reservation? With my WA Hunting License,* my CPL which isnt required if i'm open carrying, and I have also*bought the Yakima Hunting License too? WOW

    Is that so? Please cite it! Hmmmmmmmmmmm me thinks...... Well, I better not say.

    XD
    A non-tribal person owning tribal land? Is that even possible?
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    265

    Post imported post

    A non-tribal person owning tribal land? Is that even possible?
    It's called fee simple land and it's private land within reservation boundaries.

  21. #21
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    Yep its a temporary ownership. Most I know of are 99 year leases, from the original non-tribal purchaser.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575

    Post imported post

    So really off topic here but to whom would you pay property taxes to?
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    265

    Post imported post

    Orphan wrote:
    So really off topic here but to whom would you pay property taxes to?
    On fee simple land the taxes go to the county. Fee simple land is privately owned, it is not leased land. That's a whole 'nother category.

  24. #24
    Regular Member Just Us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    248

    Post imported post

    M1Gunr wrote:
    Simple fix to all of this....

    Write a letter to the Tribal Judge, inform him of what transpired. Attach copies of the various training bulletins. The issue WILL be resolved.


    Chief Judge
    Darwin Longfox
    Associate Judge
    Francis Lamebull
    Phone:
    (253) 680-5585
    Fax: (253) 680-5599
    Mailing Address:
    1638 E. 29th Street
    Tacoma, WA 98404
    Thanks for the information, this will help.

    I appreciate everyones input.

    Thanks

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Wa, ,
    Posts
    2,769

    Post imported post

    JUST US (my son in law)

    Welcome to the forum. When you werer at the house for Christmas Dinner, you never said you were joining up on here. :celebrate

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •