Ninth Circuit Limits But Does Not Disallow Tribal Roadblocks
Yesterday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a decision authored by Judge William Canby, Jr., ruled that tribal police officers have limited authority to stop and detain non-Indians travelling on state roads within Indian reservations. But in doing so, the court erected an almost insurmountable roadblock for the plaintiff, Terrence Bressi.
Bressi was stopped by Tohono O’odham tribal police officers in 2002 at a roadblock on State Route 86. Bressi refused to provide his driver’s license or other identification to the officers. He was handcuffed and taken to the side of the road, where he was detained by the officers for four hours. The tribal officers issued Bressi two citations for violating state law before letting him drive away. Bressi sued the officers in federal court, alleging various causes of action for violation of his civil rights.
The court, in Bressi v. Ford, concluded “that a roadblock on a public right-of-way within tribal territory, established on tribal authority, is permissible only to the extent that the suspicionless stop of non-Indians is limited to the amount of time, and the nature of inquiry, that can establish whether or not they are Indians. When obvious violations, such as alcohol impairment, are found, detention on tribal authority for delivery to state officers is authorized. But inquiry going beyond Indian or non-Indian status, or including searches for evidence of crime, are not authorized on purely tribal authority in the case of non-Indians.” Importantly, the decision does not prohibit tribal roadblocks involving non-Indians.
The Ninth Circuit further ruled that tribal officers who are certified to enforce state laws are subject to federal constitutional restrictions on search and seizure. The court “recognize[d] that one result of our ruling is that tribal officers who are authorized to enforce state as well as tribal law, and proceed to exercise both powers in the operation of a roadblock, will be held to [federal] constitutional standards in establishing roadblocks.”
While the court reversed the dismissal of, and remanded, Bressi’s constitutional claim pertaining to the officers’ operation of the road block, it affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of all of his other claims, including those civil rights claims relating to his arrest and detention: “the Officers were entitled to qualified immunity; reasonable officers would not have believed that the subsequent arrest violated Bressi’s constitutional rights.” The court also left untouched the district court’s ruling that to the extent the officers acted under color of tribal law, they also enjoyed tribal sovereign immunity.
