Native American Reservation access

[tradman]

Some tribes still don't play nice with other members from different tribes.

 

[Dos Perros]

yes and no its a gray area that i have found better to avid all together. I live right beside two of them.

https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R43324.pdf

"Indian tribes are quasi-sovereign entities that enjoy all the sovereign powers that are not divested by Congress or inconsistent with the tribes’ dependence on the United States. As a general rule, this means that Indian tribes cannot exercise criminal or civil jurisdiction over nonmembers. There are two exceptions to this rule for criminal jurisdiction. First, tribes may exercise criminal jurisdiction over nonmember Indians. Second, tribes may try non-Indians who commit dating and domestic violence crimes against Indians within the tribes’ jurisdictions provided the non-Indians have sufficient ties to the tribes. There are three exceptions to this rule for civil jurisdiction. First, tribes may exercise jurisdiction over nonmembers who enter consensual relationships with the tribe or its members. Second, tribes may exercise jurisdiction over nonmembers within a reservation when the nonmember’s conduct threatens or has some direct effect on the political integrity, the economic security, or the health or welfare of the tribe. These first two exceptions, enunciated in the case of Montana v. United States, are based on the tribes’ inherent sovereignty, and exercises of jurisdiction under them must relate to a tribe’s right to self-government. Third, Indian tribes may exercise jurisdiction over nonmembers when Congress authorizes them to do so. Congress may delegate federal authority to the tribes, or re-vest the tribes with inherent sovereign authority that they had lost previously. Indian tribes may also exercise jurisdiction over nonmembers under their power to exclude persons from tribal property. However, it is not clear whether the power to exclude is independent of the Montana exceptions.

The question of a tribe’s jurisdiction over nonmembers can be very complex. It is fair to say, however, that tribal jurisdiction over non-Indians is quite limited. Tribal jurisdiction over nonmember Indians is more extensive. Federal courts, however, consistently require nonmember defendants to challenge tribal court jurisdiction in tribal court before pursuing relief in federal court."

One time I got charged with a crime on a reservation. The local law enforcement (regular folks, non-tribal) advised me not to even go to court, just skip it, because it was civil only and they had no recourse to pursue me for damages. I went anyway, seemed like the right thing to do, and they gave me a warning.

I could see how it could delay a hunt potentially. I don't really see how a non-Indian could be held, like in a jail, for something hunting related (at least any longer than local law enforcement could be notified). I think the tribe would be begging for trouble to do that.

 

[KurtR]

https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R43324.pdf

"Indian tribes are quasi-sovereign entities that enjoy all the sovereign powers that are not divested by Congress or inconsistent with the tribes’ dependence on the United States. As a general rule, this means that Indian tribes cannot exercise criminal or civil jurisdiction over nonmembers. There are two exceptions to this rule for criminal jurisdiction. First, tribes may exercise criminal jurisdiction over nonmember Indians. Second, tribes may try non-Indians who commit dating and domestic violence crimes against Indians within the tribes’ jurisdictions provided the non-Indians have sufficient ties to the tribes. There are three exceptions to this rule for civil jurisdiction. First, tribes may exercise jurisdiction over nonmembers who enter consensual relationships with the tribe or its members. Second, tribes may exercise jurisdiction over nonmembers within a reservation when the nonmember’s conduct threatens or has some direct effect on the political integrity, the economic security, or the health or welfare of the tribe. These first two exceptions, enunciated in the case of Montana v. United States, are based on the tribes’ inherent sovereignty, and exercises of jurisdiction under them must relate to a tribe’s right to self-government. Third, Indian tribes may exercise jurisdiction over nonmembers when Congress authorizes them to do so. Congress may delegate federal authority to the tribes, or re-vest the tribes with inherent sovereign authority that they had lost previously. Indian tribes may also exercise jurisdiction over nonmembers under their power to exclude persons from tribal property. However, it is not clear whether the power to exclude is independent of the Montana exceptions.

The question of a tribe’s jurisdiction over nonmembers can be very complex. It is fair to say, however, that tribal jurisdiction over non-Indians is quite limited. Tribal jurisdiction over nonmember Indians is more extensive. Federal courts, however, consistently require nonmember defendants to challenge tribal court jurisdiction in tribal court before pursuing relief in federal court."

One time I got charged with a crime on a reservation. The local law enforcement (regular folks, non-tribal) advised me not to even go to court, just skip it, because it was civil only and they had no recourse to pursue me for damages. I went anyway, seemed like the right thing to do, and they gave me a warning.

I could see how it could delay a hunt potentially. I don't really see how a non-Indian could be held, like in a jail, for something hunting related (at least any longer than local law enforcement could be notified). I think the tribe would be begging for trouble to do that.

They just call the hi way patrol to come get you and take you to county not tribal jail. So like on standing rock cops can get you for speeding as they are federal and tribal on Cheyenne River they have to call local sheriff to write the ticket but don’t usually waist the time bigger fish to fry. There is a dispute with coe land on who controls what tribal warden liked to write tickets state warden said fire it in the garbage. I got so many stories I don’t have the time for them all.

 

[Fatcamp]

https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R43324.pdf

"Indian tribes are quasi-sovereign entities that enjoy all the sovereign powers that are not divested by Congress or inconsistent with the tribes’ dependence on the United States. As a general rule, this means that Indian tribes cannot exercise criminal or civil jurisdiction over nonmembers. There are two exceptions to this rule for criminal jurisdiction. First, tribes may exercise criminal jurisdiction over nonmember Indians. Second, tribes may try non-Indians who commit dating and domestic violence crimes against Indians within the tribes’ jurisdictions provided the non-Indians have sufficient ties to the tribes. There are three exceptions to this rule for civil jurisdiction. First, tribes may exercise jurisdiction over nonmembers who enter consensual relationships with the tribe or its members. Second, tribes may exercise jurisdiction over nonmembers within a reservation when the nonmember’s conduct threatens or has some direct effect on the political integrity, the economic security, or the health or welfare of the tribe. These first two exceptions, enunciated in the case of Montana v. United States, are based on the tribes’ inherent sovereignty, and exercises of jurisdiction under them must relate to a tribe’s right to self-government. Third, Indian tribes may exercise jurisdiction over nonmembers when Congress authorizes them to do so. Congress may delegate federal authority to the tribes, or re-vest the tribes with inherent sovereign authority that they had lost previously. Indian tribes may also exercise jurisdiction over nonmembers under their power to exclude persons from tribal property. However, it is not clear whether the power to exclude is independent of the Montana exceptions.

The question of a tribe’s jurisdiction over nonmembers can be very complex. It is fair to say, however, that tribal jurisdiction over non-Indians is quite limited. Tribal jurisdiction over nonmember Indians is more extensive. Federal courts, however, consistently require nonmember defendants to challenge tribal court jurisdiction in tribal court before pursuing relief in federal court."

One time I got charged with a crime on a reservation. The local law enforcement (regular folks, non-tribal) advised me not to even go to court, just skip it, because it was civil only and they had no recourse to pursue me for damages. I went anyway, seemed like the right thing to do, and they gave me a warning.

I could see how it could delay a hunt potentially. I don't really see how a non-Indian could be held, like in a jail, for something hunting related (at least any longer than local law enforcement could be notified). I think the tribe would be begging for trouble to do that.

"You may beat the rap but you sure won't beat the ride."-Some guy

 

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

The Blackfeet Reservation that borders the Bob has strict no trespassing laws for non-tribal members during hunting season.

 

[GSPHUNTER]

For the CRIT reservation, if you are going to be off road you are required to have hunting license, which is also a trespass permit.

 

[tradman]

In AZ AZPS can stop you on the reservation as well. Also, if the crime is severe enough the FBI can also be involved. I've seen them in my village conducting investigations a few times, with and without tribal law enforcememt.