Inyo County Inyo County VS. VS.

Paiute-Shoshone Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Indians of the

Bishop Bishop CommunityCommunityBy Katie DavidsonBy Katie Davidson

Who are the Paiutes?Who are the Paiutes?

The Paiutes are a The Paiutes are a tribe that live in tribe that live in the Owen Valley the Owen Valley area near Bishop, area near Bishop, California.California.

The Bishop Paiute The Bishop Paiute Tribe is the fifth Tribe is the fifth largest California largest California Tribe with over Tribe with over 2,000 members.2,000 members.

When did the Casino When did the Casino Open?Open?

The Paiute Palace The Paiute Palace Casino was Casino was established in October established in October of 1995.of 1995.

The following year the The following year the new Casino was new Casino was opened.opened.

How does the casino How does the casino help?help?

The casino has 275 slot machines The casino has 275 slot machines and six game tables that provide and six game tables that provide economic lifeblood to the Bishop economic lifeblood to the Bishop Paiute Indian Tribe.Paiute Indian Tribe.

The casino supports the 1600 The casino supports the 1600 members of the Bishop Paiute Indian members of the Bishop Paiute Indian Tribe. Tribe.

What went wrong?What went wrong? The Inyo County The Inyo County

law enforcement law enforcement thought there was thought there was welfare fraud welfare fraud being committed being committed by employees of by employees of the casino.the casino.

They obtained a They obtained a search warrant search warrant and broke into the and broke into the employees files.employees files.

More MistakesMore Mistakes

Instead of just taking the files on the Instead of just taking the files on the three men suspected of the fraud the three men suspected of the fraud the law enforcement officials took 81 law enforcement officials took 81 confidential files.confidential files.

This was settled when the case was This was settled when the case was thrown out due to a lack of probable thrown out due to a lack of probable cause.cause.

Then four months later Inyo County Then four months later Inyo County wanted more records!wanted more records!

The line was crossedThe line was crossed

The Paiutes did not take the request The Paiutes did not take the request very well and filed suit in a federal very well and filed suit in a federal district cout on Aug 4th. district cout on Aug 4th. They were “seeking injunctive and They were “seeking injunctive and

declaratory relief against further declaratory relief against further violations of the tribe’s sovereign violations of the tribe’s sovereign immunity by Inyo County.”immunity by Inyo County.”

Public Law 280Public Law 280

Granted California criminal Granted California criminal jurisdiction over offenses committed jurisdiction over offenses committed by or against Indians.by or against Indians.

This was what the Inyo County had This was what the Inyo County had as justification for its actions.as justification for its actions.

The court agreed and ruled in favor The court agreed and ruled in favor of Inyo Countyof Inyo County

9th Circuit Court9th Circuit Court

January, 2002:Two years later the 9th January, 2002:Two years later the 9th Circuit Court sided with the Paiutes.Circuit Court sided with the Paiutes.

The court ruled that P.L. 280 did not The court ruled that P.L. 280 did not justify the actions of Inyo law justify the actions of Inyo law enforcement because the statute enforcement because the statute extends state jurisdiction to individual extends state jurisdiction to individual Indians but not to tribes as a whole.Indians but not to tribes as a whole.

Inyo County violated the sovereign Inyo County violated the sovereign immunity.immunity.

The ScrambleThe Scramble

In May 2002 the Inyo County In May 2002 the Inyo County petition for a review by the full 9th petition for a review by the full 9th Circuit, but the request was denied.Circuit, but the request was denied.

However, on December 2, 2002 the However, on December 2, 2002 the U.S. Supreme Court agree to review U.S. Supreme Court agree to review the case because of its significance the case because of its significance to the relationship between to the relationship between sovereign nations and law sovereign nations and law enforcement agencies.enforcement agencies.

The Final AnswerThe Final Answer On May 19, 2003 the Supreme Court On May 19, 2003 the Supreme Court

reversed the 9th Circuit Courts decision reversed the 9th Circuit Courts decision and sided with Inyo County.and sided with Inyo County.

Saying that “tribes, like states, are not Saying that “tribes, like states, are not “citizens” or “persons” under the federal “citizens” or “persons” under the federal civil rights statute, it does not follow from civil rights statute, it does not follow from traditional tribal immunity that the tribe traditional tribal immunity that the tribe itself may sue to remedy the wrong of a itself may sue to remedy the wrong of a government wrongfully exercising a government wrongfully exercising a warrant on its property.”warrant on its property.”

SourcesSources

http://journalism.medill.northwesterhttp://journalism.medill.northwestern.edu/docket/02-0281casinos.htmln.edu/docket/02-0281casinos.html

http://journalism.medill.norhtwesterhttp://journalism.medill.norhtwestern.edu/docket/action.lasso?-databasen.edu/docket/action.lasso?-database+docket&-layout+lasso&-response=+docket&-layout+lasso&-response=%2fdocket%2fdetail.srch&-recordID%2fdocket%2fdetail.srch&-recordID+33119&-search+33119&-search

34th Annual Mule Days Celebration34th Annual Mule Days Celebration