Wisconsin Legislature: Destination-203

78 Op. Att'y Gen. 122, 126-127 (1989)

Having determined that Congress has authorized state enforcement on Indian land of the statutory provisions discussed above, it is next necessary to inquire whether, under federal preemption analysis, the remaining provisions of chapter 346 may likewise be enforced. In preemption analysis, courts engage in an inquiry into the nature of the state, federal and tribal interests involved in deciding whether a state may assert jurisdiction over Indian country in the absence of express congressional authorization.

White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker

, 448 U.S. 136, 145 (1980). The inquiry is designed to determine whether the exercise of state authority would interfere with or be incompatible with federal and tribal interests.

New Mexico v. Mescalero Apache Tribe

, 462 U.S. 324, 334 (1983);

State v. Big John

, 140 Wis. 2d 322, 327, 409 N.W.2d 455 (Ct. App. 1987). The inquiry proceeds in light of traditional notions of Indian sovereignty and the congressional goal of Indian self-government, including the goal of encouraging tribal self-sufficiency and economic development.

Cabazon

, 480 U.S. at 216.

78 Op. Att'y Gen. 122, 127 (1989)

While courts have assigned some importance to tribal self-government as an independent barrier to the assertion of state regulatory authority over reservations,

Bracker

, 448 U.S. at 142, recent United States Supreme Court cases demonstrate a trend away from utilizing the idea of inherent tribal sovereignty as an independent bar to state jurisdiction.

Three Affil. Tribes of Ft. Berthold v. Wold Engine.

, 476 U.S. 877, 884 (1986);

State v. Webster

, 114 Wis. 2d 418, 432, 338 N.W.2d 474 (1983). Recent cases rely more on principles of federal preemption.

Wold Engine.

, 476 U.S. at 884. Nevertheless, traditions of Indian sovereignty continue to provide an important "'backdrop against which [any] applicable treaties and federal statutes must be read'" in any preemption analysis.

Rice v. Rehner

, 463 U.S. 713, 719 (1983).

78 Op. Att'y Gen. 122, 127-128 (1989)

It is my opinion that while Public Law 280 does not authorize the state to apply many of the provisions of chapter 346 to the streets in question, the state may apply these other provisions on the basis of federal common law. I infer from some of the questions that you have raised that the Winnebago Tribe has not enacted a tribal traffic code and does not have an effective traffic enforcement mechanism. Given this, I believe that the state's interests in enforcing chapter 346 on the streets in question outweigh any tribal and federal interests. The state's interests in protecting public health and safety on the streets in question by enforcing chapter 346 are apparent. The technological advance in the design of vehicles that has resulted, for example, in a great increase in the speeds of vehicles and the accompanying increase in the number of traffic accidents and fatalities demonstrates the extent of the threat posed to the safety and welfare of the public by unsafe drivers.

78 Op. Att'y Gen. 122, 128 (1989)

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has provided some guidance in this area. In

County of Vilas v. Chapman

, 122 Wis. 2d 211, 361 N.W.2d 699 (1985), the court decided that the state's legitimate interests in regulating the use of public highways outweighs the interests of a tribe and the federal government where the tribe lacks a tradition of self-government in the area of traffic regulation.

Id.

at 215-17. Because the Winnebago Tribe apparently has no motor vehicle code, the county thus has the authority to enforce the remaining provisions of chapter 346 on the streets in the housing project. However, if the tribe should enact its own motor vehicle code and provide for effective enforcement, the state's authority to enforce chapter 346 on the trust land would probably be preempted by federal law.

See

State v. Webster

, 114 Wis. 2d 418, 338 N.W.2d 474 (1983).

78 Op. Att'y Gen. 122, 128 (1989)

2. Given that chapter 346 applies to streets within the housing projects, do non-tribal law enforcement officers have the authority to enforce the laws on the trust land?

78 Op. Att'y Gen. 122, 128 (1989)

As noted above, Public Law 280 provides that the criminal laws of the state shall have the same force and effect within Indian country as they have elsewhere within the state. This reference to state laws having the "same force and effect" within Indian country as elsewhere implies that state and county law enforcement officers have the authority to enforce chapter 346 on the streets in question. If the state's designated law enforcement officers could not enforce chapter 346 on the trust land, it is not clear whether the laws would have the same force and effect within Indian country as they have outside it.

78 Op. Att'y Gen. 122, 129 (1989)

Additionally, the legislative history of Public Law 280 gives explicit support to the conclusion that non-tribal law enforcement officers have the authority to enforce chapter 346 on these streets. The legislative history demonstrates that the primary concern of Congress in enacting Public Law 280 was to combat the problem of lawlessness on some Indian reservations.

Bryan

, 426 U.S. at 379. The House Report of the bill which became Public Law 280 stated that:

78 Op. Att'y Gen. 122, 129 (1989)

As a practical matter, the enforcement of law and order among the Indians in the Indian country has been left largely to the Indian groups themselves. In many States, tribes are not adequately organized to perform that function; consequently, there has been created a hiatus in law-enforcement authority that could best be remedied by conferring criminal jurisdiction on States indicating an ability and willingness to accept such responsibility.

78 Op. Att'y Gen. 122, 129 (1989)

H.R. Rep. No. 848, 83rd Cong., 1st Sess.,

reprinted in

1953 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 2409, 2411-12. Clearly, Public Law 280's grant of criminal jurisdiction to the states conferred on them the authority not only to extend their criminal laws to Indian country, but also to enforce those laws with their own personnel.

78 Op. Att'y Gen. 122, 129 (1989)

The same logic applies to extension of state laws to Indian country under principles of federal common law. The Wisconsin Supreme Court's decision in

Chapman

demonstrates that one of the main considerations in determining whether a state law may apply to Indian country is whether the relevant tribe is adequately organized to perform law enforcement functions. Where the tribe is not adequately organized for such functions, courts have not only allowed the state law to extend to Indian country, but have also allowed the state's personnel to enforce the law. Any other result would contradict one of the basic purposes of the federal common law.

78 Op. Att'y Gen. 122, 130 (1989)

3. Does the Winnebago Tribe have the authority to enact traffic laws applicable to streets within the housing projects?

78 Op. Att'y Gen. 122, 130 (1989)

Indian tribes have long been recognized as sovereign entities "'possessing attributes of sovereignty over both their members and their territory....'"

United States v. Wheeler

, 435 U.S. 313, 323 (1978). As sovereign entities, Indian tribes have the power to regulate their internal and social relations, to make their own substantive laws in internal matters, and to enforce that law in their own forums.

Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez

, 436 U.S. 49, 55-56 (1978). The Winnebago Tribe thus has the authority to enact a tribal traffic ordinance that applies to members of the tribe on the streets within the housing projects.

78 Op. Att'y Gen. 122, 130 (1989)

Whether the tribe has the authority to enact a tribal traffic ordinance that applies to non-members of the tribe is a more difficult question. Under existing law, tribes may in some circumstances assert

civil

jurisdiction over non-members,

Montana v. United States

, 450 U.S. 544 (1981), but they may not assert

criminal

jurisdiction over non-members,

Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe

, 435 U.S. 191 (1978).

78 Op. Att'y Gen. 122, 130 (1989)

As the United States Supreme Court stated in

Montana

78 Op. Att'y Gen. 122, 130 (1989)

To be sure, Indian tribes retain inherent sovereign power to exercise some forms of civil jurisdiction over non-Indians on their reservations.... A tribe may regulate, through taxation, licensing, or other means, the activities of nonmembers who enter consensual relationships with the tribe or its members, through commercial dealing, contracts, leases, or other arrangements. A tribe may also retain inherent power to exercise civil authority over the conduct of non-Indians on fee lands within its reservation when that conduct threatens or has some direct effect on the political integrity, the economic security, or the health or welfare of the tribe.