Prairie Band of Potawatomi Indians v. Wagnon
| Decision Date | 06 August 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 99-4136-JAR.,99-4136-JAR. |
| Citation | 276 F.Supp.2d 1168 |
| Parties | PRAIRIE BAND OF POTAWATOMI INDIANS, Plaintiff, v. Joan WAGNON, Secretary of Revenue, State of Kansas; Sheila Walker, Director of Vehicles, State of Kansas; and William Seck, Superintendent, Kansas Highway Patrol, State of Kansas, in their official capacities,<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL> Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
David Prager, III, Mayetta, KS, for Plaintiff.
Brian R. Johnson, The Law Offices of John M. Knox, Chartered, Lawrence, KS, John Michael Hale, Richard L. Cram, Kansas Department of Revenue-Topeka, Gail E. Bright, M.J. Willoughby, Office of Attorney General, Topeka, KS, for Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS, DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE
This matter is before the Court on defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. 144), motion for summary judgment (Doc. 146), and motion to strike (Doc. 161), and on plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 154). The parties have filed the appropriate responses and replies to the above motions. The Court has reviewed the parties' filings and is now prepared to rule.
Plaintiff filed its original complaint on September 14, 1999, seeking an order from the Court requiring the State to grant recognition to motor vehicle registrations and titles issued by the Prairie Band of Potawatomi Indians (hereinafter "Nation" or "plaintiff").2 Thereafter, on October 13, 1999, the Court issued a preliminary injunction enjoining defendants from applying or enforcing the Kansas motor vehicle registration or titling laws against plaintiff and any persons who operate or own a vehicle registered or titled under plaintiff's registration code.3 Defendants sought a stay of the injunction pending their appeal to the Tenth Circuit. The Court denied the request. However, on November 12, 1999, the Tenth Circuit granted defendants' requested stay.
Finally in an opinion dated June 25, 2001, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the Court's injunction.4 In the interim, on September 25, 2000, United States Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara granted plaintiff's request to amend its complaint. (Doc. 84). Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Doc. 85) is, therefore, the controlling complaint in this matter. Also in the interim, defendant Brownlee5 filed a motion to dismiss (Doc. 67), and plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment (Doc. 48). In light of the Tenth Circuit's decision in Prairie Band, plaintiff withdrew its motion for summary judgment.
Because the issues raised in defendant Brownlee's motion to dismiss were raised before the Tenth Circuit and rejected, this Court issued a show cause order on October 24, 2001, asking defendant Brownlee to show cause why his motion to dismiss should not be denied. Defendant Brownlee responded, arguing that the Supreme Court case Nevada v. Hicks6 altered the legal landscape so that the Tenth Circuit's opinion in Prairie Band no longer controlled. The Court issued an order on February 8, 2002, rejecting defendant Brownlee's arguments and denying defendant Brownlee's motion (Doc. 100).7
After the Court denied defendant Brownlee's motion to dismiss, discovery ensued. Thereafter, defendants filed another motion to dismiss and a motion for summary judgment and plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment, all of which are the subject of this Memorandum and Order.
Plaintiff is a federally recognized Indian tribe located on its Indian reservation in Jackson County, Kansas. On March 16, 1999, the Nation enacted the Prairie Band Motor Vehicle Code ("PBMVC").8 According to the PBMVC, it was enacted to "implement rules, regulations, and penalties essential to maintaining a safe and efficient transportation system" within the boundaries of the Nation's jurisdiction.9 The PBMVC states that:
[T]he issuance of motor vehicle license plates and registration title certificates within the boundaries of the Reservation is necessary in order for the Tribe to be able to control and regulate the ever-increasing amount of motor vehicle traffic on the reservation.
. . . . .
It is also the purpose of the Nation in enacting this Chapter to provide for the orderly registration and licensing of vehicles owned by tribal members and located on the public roads and highways of the Nation's reservation, to assist law enforcement in identifying the owners of such vehicles, to prevent fraudulent transfers, theft, conversion, or other wrongful transactions or use of vehicles, to provide positive identification of vehicles within the service area in cases of emergency, to provide revenue to the Nation through taxation and the levying of fees and charges for the privilege of operating vehicles within the service area, to allow for the orderly transfer of title and other commercial transactions involving vehicles, including the giving of security to secure loans or other advances, and for other purposes.
In accordance with the above stated purposes, the PBMVC requires tribal registrations and titles for all vehicles owned by the Nation and for all vehicles owned by tribal members residing on the reservation. Additionally, the code requires those seeking tribal registrations to surrender any certificate of title issued by another jurisdiction, including those issued by the State of Kansas.
According to the Motor Vehicle Registrar for the Nation, Mickey Martinez, the tribal certificates of title are of banknote quality and resemble titles of other jurisdictions.10 Also, according to Martinez, the tribal license plates conform to the national standards for visibility design and size.11
At present, three vehicles have been issued tribal registrations and titles. One of these vehicles is owned by an individual tribal member and the remaining two are owned by the Nation's government.12 Plaintiff estimates that there will be approximately 300 to 400 vehicles registered and titled under the PBMVC if the Nation is allowed to proceed with its titling and registration system.
Because the reservation does not have some necessary facilities, such as service or repair facilities for vehicles and healthcare facilities, occasionally it is necessary for privately owned or tribally owned vehicles to leave the reservation. Additionally, it is necessary for the tribally owned vehicles to leave the reservation to perform government functions such as storm spotting and tornado detection.13 Absent the preliminary injunction imposed by this Court, drivers of tribally licensed and registered vehicles leaving the reservation would be in violation of state law for failure to present a properly registered vehicle, resulting in ticketing or possible seizure.
State law requires all vehicles that operate within Kansas to have registrations and titles issued by the State.14 Kansas Statutes Annotated § 8-142 makes the following acts unlawful:
First: To operate, or for the owner thereof knowingly to permit the operation, upon a highway of any vehicle ... which is not registered, or for which a certificate of title has not been issued or which does not have attached thereto and displayed thereon the license plate or plates assigned thereto by the [applicable state division].
Second: To display or cause to permit to be displayed, or to have in possession, any registration receipt, certificate of title, registration license plate, registration decal ... knowing the same to be fictitious or to have been canceled, revoked, suspended or altered.
The named defendants have either taken the position or are enforcing the position that plaintiff's tribal registrations and titles violate the above statute when used off-reservation. Because the State does not regard registrations and titles issued by the Nation as valid, three citations have been issued by the State pursuant to Kansas Statutes Annotated § 8-142 for persons driving tribally-registered vehicles off the reservation.15
Pursuant to Kansas Statutes Annotated § 75-4302 the Director of Vehicles, defendant Walker, is empowered to enter into reciprocity agreements with other "states" regulating the use of vehicles owned by citizens of other states on the highways of Kansas. According to Kansas Statutes Annotated § 74-4305, the term state means, "state, territory or possession of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, a foreign country and a state or province of the foreign country ...." In accordance with this supposed wide latitude to recognize other jurisdictions' registrations, the State of Kansas allows the use of all private passenger vehicle registrations and all government passenger vehicle registrations issued by other jurisdictions to nonresidents.16 Additionally, the State authorizes a number of particular vehicle registrations to be issued for local governments, including cities, counties and school districts.17 The State of Kansas allows vehicles registered by Indian tribes located in Oklahoma to be driven within the state.18 And finally, defendants have represented to the Tenth Circuit in the context of this case that if the Nation were a Minnesota tribe, the State would recognize their vehicle registrations.19
Often police officers communicate with dispatchers to get information on a vehicle and its occupants before they approach the vehicle.20 There are several information systems available to police officers regarding a vehicle and its passengers. Police officers have access to the Kansas Criminal Justice Information System ("KCJIS") which provides vehicle registration information through the Department of Motor Vehicle's ("DMV")21 files. Law enforcement officers use this system to verify that the DMV registration information matches the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation v. Wagnon, No. 03-3322.
...and register vehicles belonging to either the [Tribe] or its members who reside on the reservation." Prairie Band of Potawatomi Indians v. Wagnon, 276 F.Supp.2d 1168, 1184 (D.Kan.2003). It is not, as Defendants assert, whether the Tribe "has the power to regulate the activities of state off......
-
773, L.L.C. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co.
...1991) (trial court has discretion to exclude "issues and claims" not found in pretrial order); Prairie Band of Potawatomi Indians v. Wagnon, 276 F. Supp.2d 1168, 1182 n.62 (D. Kan. 2003) (omitting claim or defense from pretrial order is fundamentally different from omitting factual contenti......