This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
A state officer observed a driver speeding and discarding a bottle from his vehicle in New Mexico. The officer pursued the vehicle into the Navajo Reservation, where the driver, a Navajo Nation member, was stopped. The officer conducted field sobriety tests, determined the driver was intoxicated, and later obtained an arrest warrant in compliance with Navajo Nation Code procedures (paras 2-5).
Procedural History
- State v. Harrison, 2008-NMCA-107: The New Mexico Court of Appeals upheld the conviction, ruling that the state officer had authority to stop the defendant in Indian country to investigate an off-reservation offense and that the field sobriety tests were voluntary and did not violate the Fourth Amendment (para 6).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant: Argued that the evidence from the field sobriety tests should be suppressed because the state officer lacked authority to conduct the investigation in Indian country without being cross-commissioned by the Navajo Nation or the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Claimed the detention constituted a de facto arrest, violating tribal sovereignty (paras 6, 8, 30).
- State: Contended that the officer had authority to stop the defendant in Indian country to investigate the off-reservation offense and that the investigation did not infringe on tribal sovereignty. Asserted that the field sobriety tests were voluntary and lawful (paras 6, 8, 30).
- Amicus Curiae (Navajo Nation and Pueblo of Santa Ana): Supported the defendant, arguing that the officer’s actions violated tribal sovereignty and that the field sobriety tests constituted a de facto arrest (paras 8, 30).
Legal Issues
- Did the state officer have authority to pursue and investigate an off-reservation crime committed by an Indian in Indian country?
- Did the officer’s actions, including administering field sobriety tests, infringe on tribal sovereignty?
- Did the detention of the defendant constitute a de facto arrest, violating tribal sovereignty?
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico affirmed the defendant’s conviction for driving while intoxicated (para 34).
Reasons
Per Maes J. (Daniels C.J., Serna, Bosson, and Chávez JJ. concurring):
Authority to Investigate: The Court held that state officers may enter Indian country to investigate off-reservation crimes committed by Indians, provided the investigation does not infringe on tribal sovereignty or violate governing tribal procedures. The officer’s actions in this case were lawful because they did not contravene any Navajo Nation Code provisions (paras 1, 20-28).
Tribal Sovereignty: The Court emphasized that tribal sovereignty is respected when state officers comply with governing tribal procedures. Here, the Navajo Nation lacked a codified procedure governing field sobriety tests, and the officer’s actions did not circumvent tribal law (paras 21-28).
De Facto Arrest: The Court rejected the claim that the detention constituted a de facto arrest. The officer’s actions were reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, as the detention was brief, related to the investigation, and the defendant was allowed to leave the scene on foot (paras 30-33).
Encouragement of Cross-Commission Agreements: The Court encouraged cross-commission agreements between state and tribal authorities to enhance cooperation and public safety (para 29).