Loya v. Gutierrez
| Decision Date | 11 May 2015 |
| Docket Number | 34,447. |
| Citation | 2015 NMSC 017,350 P.3d 1155 |
| Parties | Jose Luis LOYA, Plaintiff, v. Glen GUTIERREZ, Commissioned Officer of Santa Fe County, Defendant/Third–Party Plaintiff/Appellant–Petitioner, v. County of Santa Fe, Third–Party Defendant/Appellee–Respondent. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
VanAmberg, Rogers, Yepa, Abeita & Gomez, LLP, Carl Bryant Rogers, Santa Fe, NM, Ray A. Padilla, P.C., Ray A. Padilla, Albuquerque, NM, for Petitioner.
Law Offices of Michael Dickman, Michael Dickman, Santa Fe, NM, for Respondent.
Robles, Rael & Anaya, P.C., Luis E. Robles, Frank T. Apodaca, Albuquerque, NM, for Amicus Curiae New Mexico Association of Counties.
{1} Given New Mexico's highways that traverse both state and tribal lands, it is not uncommon that a tribal police officer patrolling those highways may be commissioned as a deputy county sheriff to arrest non-Indians and prosecute them in state court when they commit state traffic offenses on tribal land. In light of those recurring facts, we determine a county's legal obligation when a non-Indian, arrested by a tribal officer and prosecuted in state court for state traffic offenses, sues the arresting tribal officer for federal civil rights violations. More particularly, we decide when the county has an obligation under the New Mexico Tort Claims Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 41–4–1 to –29 (1976, as amended through 2009) (NMTCA), to provide that tribal police officer with a legal defense in the federal civil rights action. The district court as well as our Court of Appeals found no such legal duty, in part because it concluded that the tribal officer was not a state public employee as defined in the NMTCA. We hold to the contrary, finding clear evidence in the text and purpose of the NMTCA requiring the county to defend the tribal officer, duly commissioned to act as a deputy county sheriff, under these circumstances endemic to the New Mexico experience.
{2} On September 5, 2009, Officer Glen Gutierrez, on duty as a full-time salaried police officer of the Pueblo of Pojoaque and also commissioned as a Santa Fe County deputy sheriff, was patrolling a portion of U.S. Highway 84/285 located within the exterior boundary of the Pojoaque Pueblo. He was driving his tribally-marked and issued police vehicle and was dressed in his full tribal uniform displaying his tribal badge. He was also carrying a deputy's commission card issued to him by the Santa Fe County sheriff.
{3} Officer Gutierrez observed Jose Luis Loya making a dangerous lane change and engaged his emergency equipment to signal Loya to pull over. Once stopped, Officer Gutierrez asked Loya to step out of his vehicle and informed Loya that he was under arrest for reckless driving in violation of NMSA 1978, Section 66–8–113 (1987), a state law. Officer Gutierrez placed Loya in the back of his patrol vehicle and transported Loya to the Pojoaque Tribal Police Department for processing. Loya, a non-Indian, was not subject to prosecution for violation of tribal law, and therefore, he was transported from the Pueblo to the Santa Fe County Adult Detention Center where he was incarcerated. Ultimately, Officer Gutierrez prosecuted Loya for reckless driving in Santa Fe County Magistrate Court.
{4} Loya felt aggrieved by what happened to him that night. Based on those events, Loya filed a civil complaint against Officer Gutierrez in the First Judicial District Court to recover damages for deprivation of his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 (1996) (Section 1983 ), claiming false arrest, malicious prosecution, and use of excessive force. Section 1983 creates a civil action for damages under federal law against any person acting under color of state law who violates the Constitution and laws of the United States. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. “Native American tribes and those acting under tribal law do not act under color of state law within the meaning of [Section] 1983,” but Native–American actors may be subject to a Section 1983 claim if their actions are taken pursuant to state authority. Williams v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 1998–NMCA–090, ¶ 20, 125 N.M. 445, 963 P.2d 522 (emphasis added). “If an individual is possessed of state authority and purports to act under that authority, his action is state action.” Id. ¶ 21 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
{5} The State of New Mexico has exclusive criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians for actions committed within the exterior boundaries of a tribe or pueblo pursuant to the Indian Pueblo Land Act Amendments of 2005. See Pub.L. No. 109–133, 119 Stat. 2573 (2005). A tribal police officer may have jurisdictional authority to enforce tribal civil traffic ordinances against non-Indians and may eject or exclude a non-Indian engaging in criminal activity or may detain and transport the offender to proper state authorities. See Pueblo of Pojoaque Civil Traffic Code, Tribal Council Resolution No. 1992–95 (August 20, 1992). See also Duro v. Reina, 495 U.S. 676, 696–97, 110 S.Ct. 2053, 109 L.Ed.2d 693 (1990). A tribal officer may not arrest, charge, jail, or prosecute non-Indian offenders for violation of state law without some additional state authority. Id.
{6} According to the affidavit of Pueblo of Pojoaque Police Chief John Garcia, the limited jurisdiction of tribal police officers historically created a gap in effective law enforcement on state highways located within the exterior boundaries of a tribe or pueblo. The county sheriff did not have adequate staff to combat criminal activity by non-Indians on state highways traversing tribal lands. Likewise, the tribal officers lacked authority to prosecute non-Indian offenders. To overcome this limitation and encourage jurisdictions to work together, the Santa Fe County sheriff issued commissions to Pojoaque Pueblo police officers to act as county sheriff's deputies.
{7} In the course of that practice, on June 23, 2008, Santa Fe County Sheriff Greg Solano issued a commission to Officer Gutierrez appointing him as a Santa Fe County deputy sheriff for purposes of enforcing state traffic laws and criminal statutes against non-Indian offenders for offenses committed within the exterior boundaries of Pojoaque Pueblo. To qualify for the appointment, Sheriff Solano required Officer Gutierrez to provide documentation showing successful completion of state and/or federal law enforcement training and certification, a written copy of his background investigation, and his written application. Sheriff Solano also required Officer Gutierrez to take the oath mandated by the New Mexico Constitution to “support the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution and laws of the State of New Mexico, the laws of the County of Santa Fe and faithfully and impartially discharge the duties of said office to the best of [his] ability.” See N.M. Const. art. XX, § 1 ().
{8} As stated above, absent additional authority tribal police officers have no legal authority to charge non-Indian offenders for a violation of state law even if the violation is committed on tribal land. See Duro, 495 U.S. at 696–97, 110 S.Ct. 2053. It is the commission as a county deputy sheriff that gives tribal police the authority to make such arrests while acting under state law. In this case, the very reason Officer Gutierrez, a tribal police officer, is subject to a Section 1983 claim for actions taken under color of state law, is because he was acting under his state authority as a deputy sheriff, not tribal authority, when he charged, detained, and prosecuted Loya under state law. See Williams, 1998–NMCA–090, ¶¶ 20–21, 125 N.M. 445, 963 P.2d 522.
{9} Upon being sued, Officer Gutierrez tendered two requests to Santa Fe County to provide him with a legal defense and indemnification, if necessary, in accord with the defense and indemnification provisions of the NMTCA, § 41–4–4(B), (D). The County claimed it did not have any duty to provide a legal defense and indemnification, asserting that Officer Gutierrez was not a state “public employee” as defined by the NMTCA. See § 41–4–3(F). Following the denial of his request, Officer Gutierrez filed a third-party complaint in the Loya litigation against the County seeking a declaratory judgment that the NMTCA required the County to defend and indemnify him with respect to Loya's Section 1983 claims against him. The County answered and asserted a counterclaim for declaratory judgment in its favor.
{10} Both parties then filed motions for summary judgment, each basing its claim on an interpretation of the County's duties under the NMTCA. The district court ruled for the County, finding that Officer Gutierrez was not entitled to a defense under the NMTCA. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Loya v. Gutierrez, 2014–NMCA–028, ¶ 23, 319 P.3d 656. We granted certiorari to resolve a significant issue of law that potentially affects law enforcement wherever state and tribal lands border each other throughout New Mexico. Loya v. Gutierrez, 2014–NMCERT–002, 322 P.3d 1063.
{11} The issue before us is whether the County is obligated to defend and potentially indemnify Officer Gutierrez when he was sued for actions taken to charge, arrest, and prosecute a non-Indian offender in state court for violating state law on Indian land. The parties agree that the NMTCA guides this determination. The defense and indemnification provisions of the NMTCA, § 41–4–4(B), (D), set forth the obligation of governmental entities to protect public employees when they are sued for actions taken in the scope of their duties. Specifically, Subsection (B) states:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
CHISHOLM'S VILLAGE PLAZA v. TRAVELERS COMM. INS.
...ruling in favor of relieving it of any further obligations,'" Chisholm MSJ at 10 (quoting Loya v. Gutierrez, 2015-NMSC-017, ¶ 42, 350 P.3d 1155, 1166). Chisholm's Village suggests that this procedure is "'the norm,'" rather than "flatly denying coverage and forcing the insured to file suit.......
-
Alfaro-Huitron v. Cervantes Agribusiness
...sufficient control over Defendant's activities in a manner consistent with the status of employee.").4 But cf. Loya v. Gutierrez , 350 P.3d 1155, 1169 (N.M. 2015) ("When th[e] right to control is ... fundamentally a part of the relationship [such as the relationship between the sheriff and ......
-
Dove v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.
...and until it receives a judicial ruling in its favor relieving it of any further obligations." Loya v. Gutierrez , 2015-NMSC-017, ¶ 42, 350 P.3d 1155 ; see Servants of Paraclete, Inc. v. Great Am. Ins. Co. , 857 F. Supp. 822, 830 (D.N.M. 1994) ("Where coverage under the policy is in some do......
-
Dixon v. Stone Truck Line, Inc.
...an 36 employment relationship; and (9) whether the principal is engaged in business. See Loya v. Gutierrez, 2015-NMSC-017, ¶¶ 55-56, 350 P.3d 1155; Celaya, 2004-NMSC-005, ¶ 15 (citing Restatement (Second) of Agency § 220(2)(a-j)). As aforementioned, the TAC alleges that Ryan controlled the ......