I have learned over the course of my life that conversations regarding politics or religion can end in heated arguments with each side willing to use whatever ammunition at their disposal to prove they are indeed “RIGHT!” I’ve found that here in Washington discussions about Indian rights can become even more heated than those discussions involving whether Republicans will be allowed into Heaven or not. While I don’t pretend to be an expert on Native American Indians or Indian Law, I have taken classes on both and what I learned changed my views considerably. I think State v. Jim is one of those cases that has the potential for heated debate on the rights of Indians. Division III of the Court of Appeals has come down on the side of the Indians in this case.
Lester Ray Jim is a member of the Yakima Nation. He was fishing on the Columbia River via access from the Maryhill Treaty Fishing Access Site. Upon docking he was cited by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife for second degree unlawful use of a net and retaining undersized sturgeon. Now this case is not about the fishing practices of Indians and how they might affect fishing resources; it is about state criminal jurisdiction over Indians. So keep in mind that we don’t even get to the facts of the size of the fish or how the net was used. This is a jurisdictional issue! Even non-Indian criminal cases can have jurisdictional issues that don’t get to the meat of the case before they are decided. Search and seizure issues take the same route. So before anyone says, “You mean because they’re Indians we’re going to ignore how and what they were pulling from the river,” please realize that this is how legal analysis works. We have to start with the foundation before we get to the house (i.e., “can you even cite them with a crime” before we get to “did they commit a crime”).
Jim was successful at having the cases dismissed for jurisdictional reasons. The State appealed to the Superior Court and won. The Court of Appeals granted discretionary review.
Now it is clear that the state of Washington does not have criminal jurisdiction for these types of crimes if they occur on the reservation via P.L. 280. However, these crimes were not on the reservation. So it must be determined whether the State has criminal jurisdiction for these types of crimes at a treaty site which is not on the reservation.
“In 1855, several treaties were negotiated with Pacific Northwest Indian tribes for the setting aside of land for Indian reservations. Some of this land was lost with the subsequent building of dams along the Columbia River. The Maryhill site resulted from congressional legislation authorizing the acquisition of lands to provide facilities in Washington to replace Indian fishing grounds submerged or destroyed by the construction of dams.”
So even though these crimes did not take place on a reservation, they did take place where a treaty was in effect. The Supreme Court has already decided a similar case and held that the State did not have jurisdiction at that particular treaty site in that case only. So this Court had to decide whether there was jurisdiction at this site. Because this site was reserved specifically to these tribes to replace reservation land that was “submerged or destroyed”, Division III held that the fishing site is entitled to reservation status. Thus the State had no jurisdiction to cite Jim and the cases were dismissed.
And for all of you lay people who did not have to suffer through studying Indian Law for the Bar exam, felonies committed by Indians is a whole different ball game. The crimes in this case were misdemeanors or gross misdemeanors.
There is lots of good reading out there about how the State and the Indian tribes are working together to preserve the ecology and resources of the State. Together they have come a long way!
