People v. Bennett, Docket No. 134266

• Decision Date: 04 August 1992
• Docket Number: Docket No. 134266
• Citation: 195 Mich.App. 455,491 N.W.2d 866
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David Alvin BENNETT, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 866

491 N.W.2d 866

195 Mich.App. 455

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David Alvin BENNETT, Defendant-Appellee.

Docket No. 134266.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted Feb. 4, 1992, at Grand Rapids.

Decided Aug. 4, 1992, at 9:25 a.m.

Released for Publication Nov. 19, 1992.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Thomas L. Casey, Sol. Gen., Larry J. Burdick, Pros. Atty., and Diane M. Kuhn, Asst. Pros. Atty., for the People.

Daniel R. O'Neil, Mt. Pleasant, for defendant-appellee.

Derril B. Jordan, Mt. Pleasant, amicus curiae for Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan.

Before MacKENZIE, P.J., and WEAVER and ROBERT B. BURNS, ^* JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, a member of the Saginaw Chippewa Indian tribe, was arrested in Chippewa Township, Isabella County, for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, third offense, M.C.L. Sec. 257.625(6); MSA 9.2325(6). Defendant was also charged with impaired driving, third offense, M.C.L. Sec. 257.625b(4); M.S.A. Sec. 9.2325(2)(4), and driving with a suspended license, second offense, M.C.L. Sec. 257.904(3); M.S.A. Sec. 9.2604(3). Defendant moved in circuit court to quash the information on the ground that the state court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because he was arrested on land within the boundaries of the Isabella Indian reservation. The court granted defendant's motion to quash. The prosecution now appeals as of right the August 31, 1990, order quashing the information. We reverse and remand.

The sole issue before us is whether defendant was in Indian country. Indian country is defined by 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1151, in pertinent part, as:

(a) all land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States government, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and, including rights-of-way running through the reservation...."

The circuit court found that "Leaton Road is a right-of-way running through the Isabella Indian Reservation, and is therefore, by definition, 'Indian Country.' Since federal and tribal jurisdiction are exclusive in Indian Country, it is axiomatic that state criminal jurisdiction over an enrolled member of the tribe in Indian country, including rights-of-way therein, is void, according to the plain meaning of the statute."

The prosecution asserts that defendant was not in Indian country when he was arrested. Rather, the prosecution contends the location where defendant was arrested is outside the areas that are Indian country.

The prosecution first argues that land patented to non-Indians before the effective date of the treaties was never Indian country as defined by statute.

The Isabella reservation was established by the Treaty of October 18, 1864. That treaty provided, in part, that:

Article II. In consideration of the foregoing relinquishments, the United States hereby agree to set apart for the exclusive use, ownership, and occupancy of the said ... Chippewas of Saginaw, Swan Creek, and Black River, all of the unsold lands within the six townships in Isabella County, reserved to said Indians by the treaty of August 2d, 1855, aforesaid, and designated as follows, vis:

The north half of township fourteen, and townships fifteen and sixteen north, of range three west; the north half of township fourteen and township fifteen north, of range four west, and townships fourteen and fifteen north, of range five west.

The prosecution argues that any lands within the six described townships that were sold before the execution of the 1864 treaty were never part of the original Isabella reservation and, therefore, could not be considered Indian country for jurisdictional purposes. The prosecution has documented the fact that the area where defendant was arrested was patented to non-Indians in July 1857 pursuant to cash purchases made in 1854.

Indian treaties must be construed "so far as possible, in the sense in which the Indians understood them, and in a spirit which generously recognizes the full obligation of this nation to protect the interests of a dependent people." Choctaw Nation of Indians v. United States, 318 U.S. 423, 432, 63...