Please visit my author page at amazon.com
State of Iowa v. Jessica Rae Stanton. IA Indian Country criminal jurisdiction
An officer of the Meskwaki Nation Police Department filed two cases in Tama County, Iowa, district court against the defendant. She was charged with the crimes of trespass, possession of drug paraphernalia, and violation of a no-contact order while on the Meskwaki Settlement.
Magistrate Richard Vander Mey dismissed the charges, sua sponte. He also assessed costs against the Meskwaki Nation and advised the sheriff to consult with the county attorney to determine whether prisoners such as the defendant should even be held in the county jail. He also advised tribal officials to cease and desist from bringing state charges, since those charges would only serve to clog the state courts. This ruling was based upon his reading of recent federal legislation.
The state appealed the dismissal, and the Iowa Supreme Court granted discretionary review. The Court appointed attorney John G. Daufeldt to represent the defendant in the appeal. Amicus briefs were also filed by the U.S. Attorney and by an attorney representing the Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa.
The defendant first argued that the appeal was improper, since the state should have first appealed the magistrate's order to the district court. The supreme court, however, agreed with the state that the direct appeal was appropriate. It then turned to the merits of the case, starting with the history of the relevant statutes.
In 1896, the State of Iowa tendered the lands in question to the federal government for the benefit of the federally recognized tribe, making the settlement "Indian country" for purposes of federal law. Under the 1896, the Iowa legislature retained criminal jurisdiction, and the federal government accepted this limitation.
In 1948, the U.S. Congress expanded jurisdiction of state courts over crimes committed there. Under the 1948 statute, the state of Iowa was granted jurisdiction over offenses committed "by or against Indians... to the same extent as its courts have jurisdiction generally over offenses." The court noted that, as of 1948, the state was granted jurisdiction over crimes by or against Indians, but that the 1948 law presupposed that there was pre-existing jurisdiction over offenses by non-Indians.
In 2018, Congress repealed the 1948 law. The 2018 law stated merely that the 1948 law "is repealed."
The court held that the effect of the 2018 change was clear: It merely repealed the 1948 expansion of jurisdiction, but left in placek the pre-1948 jurisdiction over offenses not involving Indians.
Turning to the case at hand, the court noted that the record was unclear whether the defendant was Indian or non-Indian. Also, the record did not show whether the alleged victims were Indian or non-Indian.
It therefore reversed and remanded the case. While not stated in the opinion, presumably the remand would need to make the determination as to whether the defendant or victim(s) were Indian or non-Indian. If any of them were Indian, then the court would lack jurisdiction. If neither the defendant nor victim was Indian (or if it was a victimless crime), then the state court would have jurisdiction.
No. 19-0177 (Iowa Sept. 13, 2019).
Please see the original opinion for the court's exact language.
Advertisement:
Richard P. Clem is an attorney and continuing legal education (CLE) provider in Minnesota. He has been in private practice in the Twin Cities for 25 years. He has a J.D., cum laude, from Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul and a B.A. in History from the University of Minnesota. His reported cases include: Asociacion Nacional de Pescadores a Pequena Escala o Artesanales de Colombia v. Dow Quimica de Colombia, 988 F.2d 559, rehearing denied, 5 F.3d 530 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1041 (1994); LaMott v. Apple Valley Health Care Center, 465 N.W.2d 585 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991); Abo el Ela v. State, 468 N.W.2d 580 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991).
For more information about attorney Clem, please visit
his website.
For more information about his low-cost CLE programs, please visit his CLE page.
Return to index of case summaries
Copyright 2019, Richard P. Clem.
Attorney Richard P. Clem is responsible for the content of this page.
Richard P. Clem, Attorney
PO Box 14957
Minneapolis, MN 55414
USA
Phone: +1-612-378-7751
e-mail: clem.law@usa.net
Minnesota Attorney Registration Number 0192648
Please visit my author page at amazon.com