This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Defendant, a member of the Navajo Nation, was arrested for driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (DWI) near the intersection of State Road 118 and State Road 400 in McKinley County, New Mexico. The arrest occurred on land known as parcel three of the former Fort Wingate Military Reservation, which is administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and primarily used for educating Indian children (paras 2-4).
Procedural History
- District Court, McKinley County: Denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the land where the arrest occurred was not a "dependent Indian community" under federal law (paras 1, 5).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the arrest occurred in "Indian country," specifically a "dependent Indian community" under 18 U.S.C. § 1151(b), and therefore the state court lacked jurisdiction to prosecute the case (paras 1, 7).
- Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Contended that the land in question did not meet the criteria for a "dependent Indian community" as defined by federal law, emphasizing that the land was not set aside for Indian residential use and that state services were provided to the area (paras 16, 20, 26).
Legal Issues
- Whether the land where the Defendant was arrested qualifies as a "dependent Indian community" under 18 U.S.C. § 1151(b), thereby precluding state jurisdiction.
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss the charges against the Defendant (para 28).
Reasons
Per Pickard CJ. (Bustamante and Armijo JJ. concurring):
The Court applied the two-pronged test established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government, which requires (1) a federal set-aside of the land for Indian use and (2) federal superintendence over the land (para 9).
Federal Set-Aside: The Court found that parcel three was set aside by Congress through Public Law 567 for use by the BIA, satisfying the first prong of the test. The land's use for educating Indian children was consistent with the set-aside requirement (paras 13-17).
Federal Superintendence: The Court determined that the BIA exercised significant control over parcel three, including regulating occupancy, grazing, and other activities. This satisfied the second prong of the test (paras 24-26).
The Court rejected the State's argument that the land must be set aside for Indian residential use, noting that the educational community on parcel three constituted a cohesive "Indian community" under the law (paras 20-23).
The Court concluded that parcel three met the definition of a "dependent Indian community" under 18 U.S.C. § 1151(b), and therefore the state lacked jurisdiction to prosecute the Defendant (paras 27-28).