Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe v. Bolstrom, (1991)

• Court: Lower Elwha Tribal Court of Appeals
• Decision Date: 19 June 1991
• Docket Number: LOW-CRF-1/91-053,054
• Citation: Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe v. Bolstrom (Lower Elwha Tribal Ct. of App. 1991)
• Parties: LOWER ELWHA KLALLAM TRIBE v. JAMES L. BOLSTROM AND RUSSELL N. HEPFER

LOWER ELWHA KLALLAM TRIBE v. JAMES L. BOLSTROM AND RUSSELL N. HEPFER

Nos. LOW-CRF-1/91-053, 054

Lower Elwha Klallam Tribal Appeals Court

June 19, 1991

Before: Chief Justice Elbridge Coochise, Associate Justice Calvin E. Gantenbein, and Associate Justice John L. Roe.

SUMMARY

Two members of the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe were charged with violating tribal fishing regulations by utilizing drift net fishing methods on the Elwha River. When arrested by the tribal fisheries enforcement officer, the defendants were not informed of their rights under Miranda v. Arizona, as required under Section 40.20 of the Tribal Fishing Ordinance. The defendants made no incriminating statements and were advised of their rights after being transported to jail. During their trial, the defendants, who represented themselves without assistance of counsel, moved to dismiss charges against them on the grounds that the enforcement officer failed to inform them of their Miranda rights.

The trial court granted the motion to dismiss. The Tribe appealed, arguing (1) that the trial court erred in allowing the defendants to move for dismissal once the trial had begun and (2) that dismissal of charges is not the proper remedy for an officer's failure to inform a defendant of his or her Miranda rights. Finding that Rule "O" of the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe's Court Procedures Code gives a trial judge broad discretion as to when motions can be raised, especially in respect to pro se defendants, the Tribal Appeals Court held that no procedural error occurred in the granting of the motion. Nonetheless, the Court reversed the trial court's order of dismissal, holding that sanctions for failure to advise defendants of their Miranda rights properly take the form of suppression of evidence under the exclusionary rule, not dismissal of criminal charges.

OPINION AND ORDER

This appeal presents two issues for review. First, should the trial court have allowed the defendants to make their motion for dismissal after the trial had begun? Secondly, is dismissal of criminal charges the proper remedy for an officer's failure to advise a defendant of his Miranda rights?

FACTS

Both defendants are enrolled members of the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe. On December 22, 1990, at approximately 7:40 in the morning, Fisheries Enforcement Officer Zeller observed the defendants drift net fishing on the Elwha River. Tribal fishing regulations in effect at this time only allowed for fishing by set nets and hook and line fishing. Officer Zeller requested other officers and arrested the defendants a short time later. Both defendants were transported to jail, where they were advised of their Miranda rights. Neither defendant made any incriminating statements. From the time of arrest to the advisement of rights, approximately one hour had elapsed.

On March 1, 1991, this matter came for trial before the Tribal Court. Each defendant had been charged with one count of fishing by an unlawful method. During cross examination of Officer Zeller, the defendants moved to dismiss the charges against them under Rule "O" of the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe's Court Procedures Code. The defendants alleged that the officer violated Section 40.20 of the Tribal Fishing Ordinance by not immediately informing them of their rights, and that, therefore, the charges should be dismissed. The trial court agreed with the defendants and dismissed the charges. The Tribe appeals.

CONCLUSION

The Tribal Appeals Court, having heard the oral arguments of the parties, having read all court documents and reviewed other documents pertinent to the case, and having considered all exhibits introduced into evidence, now makes the following conclusions.

The appellate court finds that the evidence does not support the Tribe's assertion that the trial court...