Skokomish Indian Tribe v. Cultee, (2008)

• Court: Skokomish Tribal Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: NIELSEN, J.
• Decision Date: 25 June 2008
• Docket Number: SKO-Cr-12/-6-200
• Citation: Skokomish Indian Tribe v. Cultee (Skokomish Tribal Ct. of App. 2008)
• Parties: SKOKOMISH INDIAN TRIBE, RESPONDENT, v. MARVIN CULTEE, APPELLANT.

SKOKOMISH INDIAN TRIBE, RESPONDENT, v. MARVIN CULTEE, APPELLANT.

No. SKO-Cr-12/-6-200

Skokomish Tribal Court of Appeals Skokomish Indian Reservation Shelton, Washington

June 25, 2008

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

SYLLABUS^*fn1

Trial court denied criminal Defendant's motion to suppress evidence and found Defendant guilty of possession of a controlled substance. Court of Appeals holds that the trial court had the authority to issue a warrant for arrest based on Defendant's failure to appear at a compliance hearing for a prior conviction and that the arrest was therefore permissible and the evidence seized incident to the arrest admissible. Trial court order affirmed.

SYLLABUS^[1]

Trial court denied criminal Defendant's motion to suppress evidence and found Defendant guilty of possession of a controlled substance. Court of Appeals holds that the trial court had the authority to issue a warrant for arrest based on Defendant's failure to appear at a compliance hearing for a prior conviction and that the arrest was therefore permissible and the evidence seized incident to the arrest admissible. Trial court order affirmed.

Appearances: Ric Kilmer, Skokomish Prosecuting Attorney for Respondent; Desmond Kolke, attorney/spokesperson for Appellant, Marvin Cultee.

Before: Eric Nielsen, Chief Judge; Daniel A. Brown, Judge Leona Colegrove, Judge.

NIELSEN, J.

OPINION

I. Factual Background and Procedural History

The facts are undisputed. The trial court entered post-conviction orders following Marvin Cultee's criminal convictions and scheduled periodic review hearings to monitor Mr. Cultee's compliance with those orders.^[2] On October 12, 2007, Mr. Cultee signed a written promise to appear at a November 9, 2007 review hearing and was told his failure to appear could result in his arrest. Mr. Cultee failed to appear at the hearing and the trial judge issued a warrant for his arrest for his failure to appear.

Mr. Cultee was subsequently arrested on the warrant. He was searched incident to the arrest and police found illegal drugs. Based on the drugs found during the search, Mr. Cultee was charged with possession of a controlled substance for personal use under Skokomish Tribal Code (STC) 9.09.040(a).

Mr. Cultee moved to suppress the drugs on the grounds the trial court did not have the authority to issue an arrest warrant based on Mr. Cultee's failure to appear at the November 9, 2007 hearing.^[3] The trial judge denied the motion. Mr. Cultee stipulated to facts and preserved his right to appeal the suppression issue. Based on the stipulated facts, Mr. Cultee was found guilty.

Mr. Cultee now appeals the trial court's order denying his suppression motion. We affirm.

II. Standard of Review

The Skokomish Tribal Code does not specify the standard of review of trial court decisions. In the absence of a court rule or tribal law, we look to persuasive and well-reasoned decisions from other jurisdictions for guidance.

The majority of appellate courts review trial court decisions under one of the three standards depending on the issues. "For purposes of standard of review, decisions by judges are traditionally divided into three categories, denominated questions of law (reviewable de novo), questions of fact (reviewable for clear error), and matters of discretion (reviewable for 'abuse of discretion')." Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U. S. 552, 558, 108 S.Ct. 2541, 2546 (1988); Dodge v. Hoopa Valley Gaming Commission, 7 NICS 51 (Hoopa Valley Tribal Ct.App. 2005). Accord Raymond Johns and Leslie McGhee v. Gracie Allen, 6 NICS App. 196, 196 - 197 (Skokomish Tribal Ct.App. 2004) ("In the absence of any specified standard of review, we review issues of fact under the "clearly erroneous" standard and issues of law de novo.")

Appellant argues that under the Rules for the Skokomish Tribal Court, STC 3.01.072, the trial judge did not have the authority to issue a warrant for his arrest based on his failure to appear at the review hearing. Respondent argues the trial judge had the authority to order Appellant's arrest under STC 3.01.012. The interpretation of a statute is a question of law that appellate courts review de novo under an error of law standard. Jeldness v. Pearce, 30 F.3d 1220, 1222 (9th Cir. 1994); Muckleshoot Indian Tribe v. Washington Dept. of Ecology, 112 Wn.App. 712, 720, 50 P.3d 668 (2002). Because our decision requires interpreting the above code provisions, we review that part of the trial court's decision that it had authority to order Appellant's arrest de novo under the error of law standard.

III. Decision

A court's primary duty in interpreting any legislation is to discern and implement the intent of the legislative body. Nat'l Elec. Contractors Ass'n v. Riveland, 138 Wn.2d 9, 19, 978 P.2d 481 (1999). The language of a code provision or statute provides "the most reliable evidence of [the legislature's] intent." United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576, 593, 101 S.Ct. 2524, 69 L.Ed.2d 246 (1981). The starting point must always be the legislation's plain language and ordinary meaning. Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337, 340, 117 S.Ct. 843, 136 L.Ed.2d 808 (1997). In interpreting a statute, however, courts consider not only the meaning of the critical word or phrase but also its purpose in the statutory scheme. Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137, 145, 116 S.Ct. 501, 133 L.Ed.2d 472 (1995).

STC 3.01.072(a) provides:

A tribal judge shall have authority to issue an arrest warrant when presented with a complaint which shows that probable cause exists to issue an arrest warrant when presented with a complaint which shows that probable cause exists to believe the person named in the complaint has committed an offense under tribal law.

Appellant argues the plain language of the above provision limits the tribal judge's authority to issue an arrest warrant to only those circumstances where a complaint is filed and there is probable cause to believe the person named in the complaint has committed the offense.^[4]

Appellant contends that because the trial judge ordered his arrest for his failure to appear at a review hearing and not on the basis of a complaint alleging an offense, the trial court exceeded its authority and the warrant was illegal. Appellant reasons that because the arrest warrant was illegal, the search incident to his arrest was illegal and the drugs, which were uncovered during that search, should have been suppressed.

Appellant is correct if STC 3.01.012(a) is the only code provision authorizing the trial judge to order an arrest. Respondent, however, argues it is not. Respondent contends tribal judges also have the authority to order an arrest under STC 3.01.012(a). Respondent also does not concede that these are the only situations in which a tribal judge could execute a warrant relying on STC 3.01.012(a), which provides:

Whenever the tribal court has jurisdiction over a person and subject, it shall also have the power to use reasonable means to protect and carry out its jurisdiction. If the means to enforce its jurisdiction are not spelled out in these rules or in the tribal code, the court may use any appropriate procedure that is fair and consistent with the spirit of the tribal law which is being applied.

Under STC 3.01.012(a), the Tribe's legislative body has given the tribal judge power and authority to use "reasonable means to protect and carry out its jurisdiction." That authority is properly exercised if the means to enforce "its jurisdiction are not spelled out" in the court rules or tribal code and the means used are an "appropriate procedure that is fair and consistent with the spirit of the tribal law which is being applied."

We find STC 3.01.072(a) was not intended to be the exclusive circumstance where a tribal judge is authorized to order an arrest, thus running into conflict with the "not spelled out in these rules or in the tribal code" section of STC 3.01.012(a). See STC 3.01.074 (court authorized to order an arrest where a person fails to respond to a summons to appear). The primary purpose of that provision is to grant the tribal judge authority to order an arrest when a complaint has been filed accusing a person of committing an offense. Because an arrest is an infringement on a person's fundamental right to liberty, where there is only an allegation of criminal wrong-doing, it makes sense the legislative body specifically granted the tribal judge the authority to infringe on a person's liberty interest by ordering an arrest only when certain criteria are met. See, Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 144, 99 S.Ct. 2689, 2694, 61 L.Ed.2d 433 (1979) (where the Supreme Court recognized that an individual has a liberty interest in being free from incarceration absent a criminal conviction).

However, after a conviction, a person has no interest in being free from authorized and constitutional liberty restraints. See, Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 224, 96 S.Ct. 2532, 2538, 49 L.Ed.2d 451 (1976) (once defendant is convicted, he is constitutionally deprived of the liberty interest in being free from confinement). Under the Skokomish Tribal Code, the court has broad discretion, post-conviction, to order confinement as well as community service, alcohol-abuse counseling, restitution and other sentencing alternatives. STC 9.11.010. The court must have the power to enforce a valid post-conviction order, otherwise a convicted person could ignore the court's order with impunity, which would render the court's authority under STC 9.11.010 meaningless.

The primary mechanism for enforcing jurisdiction over a person is the court's ability to compel the person to appear.^[5] Under STC 3.01.012(a), the Tribe's legislative body has given the tribal court the power to enforce its jurisdiction where...