Puyallup Tribe v. Keating, (1999)

• Decision Date: 20 April 1999
• Docket Number: CR 98-512
• Citation: Puyallup Tribe v. Keating (Puyallup Tribal App. Ct. 1999)
• Parties: PUYALLUP TRIBE PLAINTIFF v. DIANE KEATING DEFENDANT
• Court: Puyallup Tribal App Court

PUYALLUP TRIBEPLAINTIFF v. DIANE KEATINGDEFENDANT

No. CR 98-512

Puyallup Tribal Court Puyallup Indian Reservation Tacoma, Washington

April 20, 1999

Opinion

LORINTHA WARWICK, JUDGE PRO TEM

This matter came before the court on April 14,1999 at 10:30 a.m Present in court were Debra O'Gara, Prosecutor and the defendantDiane Keating.

The purpose of the hearing was arraignment on Battery as cited under the Puyallup Domestic Violence Code.Before the court also was a motion to dismiss filed by the defendant on March 31, 1999 citing that she is not a Native American as a defense.Orally, the court ruled against the dismissal and continued arraignment until May 5, 1999 at 11:30 a.m.

Findings:

1.The defendant's motion to dismiss was founded on legal precedent in the Oliphant case which goes to criminal jurisdiction and non-Indians.^[1]

2.The Puyallup Tribe enacted OrdinanceNo. 2104980 which cites legal authority to make law to prevent domestic violence for purposes of prevention and anti-harassment and became effective 30 calendar days after such notice was posted.

3.The Puyallup Tribe enacted OrdinanceNo 2104980 on April 21,1998 and thus became law on May 21, 1998.

4.Under 25 U.S.C. 1321as amended in 1968 the U.S. consented to give to "any state not having jurisdiction over criminal offenses committed by or against Indians in the area of Indian country situated within such state to assume with the consent .... of the Indian tribe occupying the particular Indian country or part thereof, which could be affected by such assumption ....

5.Puyallup Tribe has not given consent to Washington State to assume jurisdiction over domestic violence cases pursuant to Puyallup Tribal OrdinanceNo. 2104980.

6.The Full Faith and Credit provisions of Violence Against Women Act, VAWA, 18 U.S.C. 2265 requires states and Indian tribes to enforce "valid" protection orders issued by foreign states and Indian tribes as if the order had been issued by the non-issuing, enforcing state or Indian tribe.

7.Furthermore the types of protection orders covered by 2265 cites "any injunction or other orders issued for the purpose of preventing violent or threatening acts or harassment against, or contact or communication with or physical proximity to, another person including temporary and final protection orders issued by civil and criminal courts(other than support or child custody orders) ....18 U.S.C 2266.In other words it extends to temporary and final, civil and criminal protection orders

8.Based on the VAWA provisions^[2] the Oliphant defense is not a valid defense in domestic violence.

9.Based on language of 25 U.S.C. whereby states can only assume jurisdiction if the tribe consents the Oliphant defense is again indefensible.

10.Additionally the Montana case^[3] holds that Indian Nations have the inherent sovereign power to regulate conduct of non-Indians which threatens or directly affects "the political integrity, the economic security, or the health or welfare of...