State v. Thompson, A18-0545
| Decision Date | 15 January 2020 |
| Docket Number | A18-0545 |
| Citation | 937 N.W.2d 418 |
| Parties | STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Randy Lee THOMPSON, Appellant. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Saint Paul, Minnesota; and David L. Hanson, Beltrami County Attorney, Bemidji, Minnesota, for respondent.
Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Saint Paul, Minnesota; and Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Special Assistant State Public Defender, Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Minneapolis, Minnesota, for appellant.
Appellant Randy Lee Thompson challenges his conviction for first-degree driving while impaired. See Minn. Stat. § 169A.24, subd. 1(2), subd. 2 (2018). Thompson argues that he was unlawfully arrested by a Red Lake Band police officer and that all evidence obtained as a result of that unlawful arrest should be suppressed. The district court denied Thompson’s motion to suppress. It reasoned that because Red Lake is a sovereign nation, the State has no authority to grant or deny enforcement power to Red Lake officers.
The court of appeals affirmed the district court, holding that tribal officers have the authority to detain and eject individuals from the Red Lake Reservation. Because we hold that Officer Patrick Bendel of the Red Lake Police Department acted within his lawful authority when he detained Thompson and transported him to Beltrami County law enforcement, we affirm.
On August 16, 2017, Thompson drove to the Red Lake Indian Health Service Hospital in Red Lake to pick up his brother. Officer Bendel was present when Thompson arrived at the hospital. Officer Bendel observed Thompson drive into the hospital parking lot, park, and exit his car. Officer Bendel observed that Thompson’s "eyes were watery and bloodshot" and that "he was slurring his words."
Officer Bendel approached and asked Thompson if he had been drinking. Thompson admitted that he had had "a couple beers." Officer Bendel asked Thompson if he was willing to take a preliminary breath test. Thompson consented to the test. The test showed an alcohol concentration of 0.121. Officer Bendel then asked Thompson if he was willing to perform field sobriety tests so Officer Bendel could "gauge his level of impairment." Thompson agreed. Officer Bendel administered the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Test, the One Leg Stand Test, and the Walk and Turn Test. Thompson failed all three.
Officer Bendel then informed Thompson "that he was being detained for suspicion of Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol." Officer Bendel handcuffed Thompson, read him his Miranda rights, and secured him in the back seat of the patrol car. Officer Bendel then notified Red Lake dispatch that he had detained Thompson and asked that dispatch contact the Beltrami County Sheriff’s Department to arrange a transfer of custody at the county line. Deputy Sheriff Jeff Roberts contacted Officer Bendel, stating that he would meet Officer Bendel at the reservation-county line to take custody of Thompson.
When Deputy Roberts arrived at the reservation-county line, he put his handcuffs on Thompson and placed Thompson in his squad car. He observed that Thompson had "bloodshot watery eyes." Deputy Roberts then transported Thompson to the Beltrami County jail. While in the car, Thompson made "a spontaneous utterance ... that he had had two beers" and that "he had driven in to pick his brother up." Upon arriving at the jail, Deputy Roberts read Thompson the Minnesota Implied Consent Advisory. Thompson said that he understood the statements and that he did not wish to speak to an attorney. He agreed to provide another breath sample and his alcohol concentration was reported as 0.11, above the legal limit. Deputy Roberts read Thompson his Miranda rights and Thompson declined to provide a statement. Thompson was jailed on charges of first-degree driving while impaired, see Minn. Stat. § 169A.24, subd. 1 (2018), and gross misdemeanor driving after cancellation as inimical to public safety, see Minn. Stat. § 171.24, subd. 5 (2018).
In the district court, Thompson moved to suppress all evidence obtained following what he characterized as Officer Bendel’s unlawful arrest. He argued that Officer Bendel was not a "peace officer" as defined in Minn. Stat. § 169A.03, subd. 18 (2018), and therefore could not legally arrest Thompson for driving while impaired. In response, the State argued that, because the State of Minnesota does not have jurisdiction over the Red Lake Reservation, the State can neither grant nor deny authority to Red Lake officers, nor can it dictate how Red Lake makes or enforces the law. The district court denied Thompson’s motion to suppress. It reasoned that Red Lake is a sovereign nation and therefore governs and polices itself. The district court concluded that the State did not have the power to grant or deny law enforcement authority to Red Lake police officers.
To obtain appellate review of the pretrial suppression ruling, Thompson and the State stipulated to the prosecution’s case. See Minn. R. Crim. P. 26.01, subd. 4. Thompson waived his right to a jury trial and agreed that his right to appeal would be limited to the district court’s suppression ruling. Both parties agreed that the pretrial ruling would be dispositive of the case. The district court then found Thompson guilty of driving while impaired and sentenced him to 60 months. Thompson appealed.
Following oral argument, the court of appeals requested supplemental briefing from the parties. Among other things, the court asked the parties to respond to the following question:
Does an Indian tribe or band have authority to expel a person who is not a member of that tribe or band and/or not a member of any Indian tribe from an Indian reservation? If so, does that authority empower a tribal police officer to detain a non-member suspected of driving while impaired on an Indian reservation and deliver him or her to a county deputy at the reservation border?
After receiving supplemental briefs from the parties addressing these questions, the court of appeals affirmed the district court’s suppression ruling. State v. Thompson , 929 N.W.2d 21, 23–24 (Minn. App. 2019). The court concluded that Officer Bendel’s actions were lawful because "[t]ribal law enforcement authorities have the power to restrain those who disturb public order on the reservation, and if necessary, to eject them." Id. at 32 (quoting Duro v. Reina , 495 U.S. 676, 696–97, 110 S.Ct. 2053, 109 L.Ed.2d 693 (1990), superseded by statute on other grounds , 25 U.S.C. § 1301 (2000), as recognized in United States v. Lara , 541 U.S. 193, 124 S.Ct. 1628, 158 L.Ed.2d 420 (2004) ). We granted Thompson’s petition for review.
On appeal of a district court’s denial of a pretrial motion to suppress, we review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. State v. Ortega , 770 N.W.2d 145, 149 (Minn. 2009).
Indian tribes "possess [the] traditional and undisputed power to exclude persons whom they deem to be undesirable from tribal lands." Duro , 495 U.S. at 696, 110 S.Ct. 2053. Tribal law enforcement authorities therefore Id. at 697, 110 S.Ct. 2053 ; see also Strate v. A-1 Contractors , 520 U.S. 438, 456 n.11, 117 S.Ct. 1404, 137 L.Ed.2d 661 (1997) (); State v. Horseman , 263 Mont. 87, 866 P.2d 1110, 1115–16 (1993) ; State v. Schmuck , 121 Wash.2d 373, 850 P.2d 1332, 1339 (1993) ; Colyer v. State Dep't of Transp. , 203 P.3d 1104, 1110–11 (Wy. 2009).1
In addition, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has reasoned that "[b]ecause the power of tribal authorities to exclude non-Indian law violators from the reservation would be meaningless if tribal police were not empowered to investigate such violations, tribal police must have such power." United States v. Terry , 400 F.3d 575, 579–80 (8th Cir. 2005).
In this case, Officer Bendel detained and investigated Thompson and ejected him from the Red Lake Reservation pursuant to the tribal authority to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe v. Cnty. of Mille Lacs
...law on the reservation, based on the tribe's traditional power to exclude.[15] State v. Thompson, 937 N.W.2d 418, 421-22 (Minn. 2020). In Thompson, the tribal officer observed that defendant, who had driven into a hospital parking lot, had watery and bloodshot eyes and slurred speech. Id. a......
-
Mille Lacs Band Ojibwe v. Cnty. of Mille Lacs
...within Indian country under applicable law. See gen., State v. Thompson, 929 N.W.2d 21, 29-34 (Minn. Ct. App. 2019), aff'd, 937 N.W.2d 418 (Minn. 2020) (discussing the law enforcement authority of federal, state, and Tribal police over tribe members and non-members on tribal land); cf., Neg......
-
Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe v. Cnty. of Mille Lacs
...Supreme Court and other federal courts.” State v. Thompson, 937 N.W.2d 418, 421 (Minn. 2020). Although the Minnesota Supreme Court issued Thompson in 2020, and the U.S. Supreme Court did not issue Cooley until June 2021, Walsh and Lorge do not argue that Thompson moots this case. --------- ......
-
Moses v. State
... ... appellate review. Second, both parties briefed the issue ... See State v. Thompson, 937 N.W.2d 418, 421-22 n.2 ... (Minn. 2020) (stating that appellate court may review issue ... not considered by district court when ... ...