What factors determine criminal jurisdiction on Indian lands?
Criminal jurisdiction to prosecute and punish crimes committed in Indian country in Minnesota depends upon a number of factors including where the incident took place, what type of law was violated, and whether either the perpetrator or the victim was a member of an American Indian tribe.
Under what circumstances does the federal government retain criminal jurisdiction?
The federal government has criminal jurisdiction over federal crimes of nationwide application on all American Indian lands and felonies committed by an American Indian against an American Indian or non-Indian, or by a non-Indian against an American Indian on the Red Lake or Bois Forte Reservations.
Under what circumstances does the state government retain criminal jurisdiction?
The state has criminal jurisdiction over any state crime committed by a non-Indian against a non-Indian on American Indian lands and, with certain exceptions, any state crime committed by or against an American Indian on American Indian land, except on the Red Lake or Bois Forte Reservations. The state does not retain jurisdiction to enforce state criminal statutes which are "civil-regulatory" rather than "criminal-prohibitory" under a series of court decisions interpreting Public Law 280, California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 408 U.S. 202 (1987).
Under what circumstances do tribal governments retain criminal jurisdiction?
The tribal governments of Red Lake and Bois Forte have criminal jurisdiction over misdemeanors and gross misdemeanors committed by an American Indian against an American Indian on land owned or controlled by the bands.
How does Public Law 280 affect criminal jurisdiction in Indian country?
In 1953 Congress enacted Public Law 280, in part because of the absence of adequate tribal institutions for law enforcement. Public Law 280 applies to six states, including Minnesota. It required the state to assume complete criminal jurisdiction over all Indian reservations within the state with the exception, as noted above, of Red Lake and Bois Forte. That jurisdiction does not extend, however, to criminal statutes the courts would classify as "civil-regulatory" rather than "criminal-prohibitory" under Public Law 280.
What entity retains law enforcement authority in Indian country?
The Red Lake and Bois Forte Bands have tribal law enforcement agencies that are funded and administered by the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs.
The Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa and the Lower Sioux Indian Community have concurrent jurisdiction with the Mille Lacs and Redwood county sheriff's departments respectively. They have jurisdiction over all persons in the geographic boundaries of the bands' trust lands; all tribal members within the boundaries of the reservations; and all persons within the boundaries of the reservations who commit or attempt to commit a crime in the presence of a Band police officer. The sheriff of the county in which the violation occurred is responsible for receiving persons arrested by the band's peace officers, and the Mille Lacs and Redwood County Attorneys are responsible for prosecuting such violators.
The Fond du Lac Band of Chippewa is negotiating a similar jurisdictional agreement with St. Louis and Carlton counties. This agreement will go into effect July 1, 1998.
Law enforcement authority on the other reservations is the responsibility of the respective county sheriffs.