Tulalip Tribes: The Tulalip Tribes, located along the Pacific coast approximately 30 miles north of Seattle, became subject to state juris...
Tulalip Tribes: The Tulalip Tribes, located along the Pacific coast approximately 30 miles north of Seattle, became subject to state jurisdiction under PL 280 in the late 1950s. In 1957, Washington passed a statute opting into PL 280, but only for tribes that petitioned for state jurisdiction.143 Shortly thereafter, Tulalip submitted such a petition, indicating its consent.144 Then, in 1963, Washington enacted a second law, opting for state jurisdiction over eight named subject areas regardless of tribal consent, and opting for jurisdiction over all fee lands and non-Indians regardless of tribal consent.145 This statute made no difference for Tulalip, as it had already consented to full state jurisdiction under PL 280. The system of state jurisdiction was not particularly effective at Tulalip.
Interrelated social problems of drug abuse and crime, often associated with poverty and the absence of control over community and justice institutions, made Tulalip “ ‘a very unsafe place.’ ”146 In the early 1990s, these problems were especially acute. Although the Tribe was experiencing greater economic prosperity due to gaming and commercial development, “State and county authorities essentially had stopped policing the reservation, allowing much drug-abuse related crime and violence to go unchecked.”147 According to an assessment prepared by a site visit team for the Harvard University’s Honoring Nations, “[W]hen Tulalip citizens were caught up in the non-tribal justice system, they neither trusted it to treat them fairly nor felt as if anyone in that system cared about their rehabilitation…
.” As a consequence, community members were reluctant to report crimes to the county authorities or to cooperate with investigations. Although tribes have concurrent jurisdiction under PL 280, Tulalip, like most PL 280 tribes, had never developed the governance infrastructure and programming that could support an effective tribal response to drug abuse, associated violence, and crime. The Nation had a 435 142 53 FR 5837 (1988). 143 Ch. 240, Laws of 1957, p. 941, Wash. Rev. Code, ch. 37.12 (1976); see State v. Paul, 53 Wn.2d 789, 792 337 P.2d 33, 36 (1959). 144 State v. Paul, 53 Wn.2d 789, 792 337 P.2d 33, 36 (1959) (upholding state’s assumption of PL 280 jurisdiction). 145 Wash. Rev. Code § 37.12.010. 146 2006 Site Visit Report,
Honoring Nations, Tulalip Tribes Alternative Sentencing Program (statement by a long-time Tulalip resident). The Site Visit team included Professors Duane Champagne and Carole Goldberg, as well as Dr. Miriam Jorgensen of the Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development. 147 Id. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. small, limited-operations court since the mid-1970s, formed to address tribal fishing regulations violations, evictions, and collections issues.148 The Tribe determined that retrocession was a necessary first step to raise community confidence in the justice system and to reclaim its tribal members lost to drugs and alcohol.149 At first, the Washington legislature rejected the Tribe’s requests, forcing the Tribe to resubmit petitions for several years.150 During that period, the Tribe cultivated good relations with the local Snohomish County government.151 Retrocession finally occurred in 2000,152 at a time when the Tribe’s financial and political strength were considerable. Department of the Interior funding for the Tribe’s new responsibilities was not at issue, because the Tribe was able to assume the burden of additional law enforcement and criminal justice responsibilities. In anticipation of the retrocession, the Tulalip Tribes tripled its tribal police force to nine officers (all Native American), an enterprise funded solely by the Tribe, mostly from its 9-year-old casino, but also from its commercial/retail development, Quilceda Village.153 It also hired a top-quality Indian police chief with extensive experience in Indian country and beyond.154 In addition, the Tribe and Snohomish County entered into a cross-commission agreement that empowered approved county and tribal officers to “exercise on the reservation all powers of a Tulalip Police Officer or Deputy Sheriff as provided by applicable law.”155 Initially, however, the agreement was an unrealized opportunity because “[n]one of the officers had been through the state police academy, 436 148 Id. 149 The state retained concurrent jurisdiction over the eight subject areas identified in its 1963 statute; so while comprehensive, the grant of retrocession may not have been complete. See note 145, supra. 150 Michael Ko, "New Tulalip Police Get Greater Power: Nine-Member Force to Take Criminal Cases Sheriff Used to Handle," Seattle Times, Nov. 15, 2001, p.B1. 151 Testimony of Donald C. Hatch Before The United States Senate Committee On Indian Affairs Oversight Hearing On Tribal Sovereign Immunity, Federal Document Clearing House Congressional Testimony (Sept. 24, 1996). 152 65 FR 75,948 (2000) (corrected at 65 FR 77,905 (2000)). 153 Jennifer Sullivan, “Moving Up in the Ranks: The Tulalip Police Department Is Moving Forward in Its 2-Year Effort to Become a Credible Force,” Seattle Times, March 3, 2004, p.H20; Ko, supra note 150; Janet Burkitt, “Tulalips Fighting Graveyard Stigma: Slaying Victims’ Bodies Turn Up on Reservation,” Seattle Times, May 19, 2001, p.B1. 154 2006 Site Visit Report, Honoring Nations, Tulalip Tribes Alternative Sentencing Program. 155 See Tulalip & Snohomish County Cooperative Law Enforcement Agreement ¶ 5, available at http:// www.ncai.org/main/pages/issues/governance/agreements/documents/Tulalip-Snohomish%20County% 20Law%20Enforcement%20Agreement.pdf (last visited May 4, 2005). Retrocession allowed the Tulalip Tribes to negotiate this agreement from a position of strength, as it granted the nation great authority over activity on tribal lands. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. and the department relied heavily on the Snohomish County Sheriff’s Office for backup and guidance.”156 By 2004, the Tribe’s circumstances had changed considerably. [T]he patrol staff ha[d] grown to 15. The agency now ha[d] four fish-and-wildlife officers, whose jurisdiction ranges far beyond the reservation, a fleet of new squad cars, three recently purchased boats and the beginning of a volunteer police corps. Many tribal members ha[d] come to recognize the department as the community’s watchdog.157 In addition, J. A. Goss, head of the Tulalip Police Department, began sending his officers to the state’s Criminal Justice Training Commission, which provided them with the same training given most state police and made them eligible for a County law enforcement commission under the parties’ 2001 agreement.158 The cross-commission gave the tribal officers authority to arrest non-Indians, an authority that otherwise rested exclusively with the state. With retrocession also came the possibility for the Tribe to introduce its own courts and philosophies of justice. With help from the Northwest Intertribal Court System, Tulalip “upgraded its court facility, and … hired and contracted for prosecutors, a second judge, clerks, probation and compliance officers, and other necessary court personnel
. Additionally, it developed a relationship with the University of Washington clinical law program to provide counsel for needy defendants.”159 Although the early versions of the Tulalip Police Department and Tulalip Court appeared quite Western in both structure and operation, the Tribe realized that it did not want to replicate the state and county systems. Thus, the chief of police and criminal court judge quickly moved to create “a system that Tulalip citizens could trust, that was viewed as interested in recovering people and not ‘throwing them away,’ and that generated results.”160 After convening all the relevant stakeholders and tribal personnel in the community, they devised an alternative sentencing system using GPS technology and mandatory treatment, established a “healing to wellness” court, and initiated the development of an intertribal detention facility (to be leased from the county) that would 437 156 Sullivan, supra note 153. 157 Id. 158 Id. 159 2006 Site Visit Report, Honoring Nations, Tulalip Tribes Alternative Sentencing Program. 160 Id. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. focus on rehabilitation.161 The new system made extensive use of tribal elders and tribal teachings. Harvard University’s Honoring Nations program has provided some indicators of the effectiveness of Tulalip’s post-retrocession law enforcement and criminal justice systems: · The police chief claimed that crime is declining and that today, the Tulalip Reservation is “the safest place in Washington State.” While we did not see geographical statistics on crime, this sentiment was echoed by other parties. At a completely different time and without knowing what the chief would tell us, a tribal attorney noted that Tulalip used to be a very unsafe place “but now it’s not.” · More specifically, tribal and county officials who are in a position to know claimed that TASP (Tribal Alternative Sentencing Program) has greater traction against recidivism than typical programming. Reportedly, 20-25% of the participants in TASP do not re-offend, as compared to only 7-9% in Snohomish County’s defendant population. · The tribe presented estimates of jail-cost savings of approximately $120,000 over the last four quarters; these estimates are based on the number of days defendants would have been in jail had they not been on GPS ankle bracelets as TASP participants.162 · Participants in TASP provided testimony that it is working for them. The chief of police and criminal court judge both reported hearing from parents who said, “TASP gave me my child back.” The chief even said he had parents giving tips about their children’s offenses, with the intention of getting them into TASP, since it has established a reputation for caring rehabilitation. We were particularly struck by the experience of a young female client who is pregnant and wanted to stay in the same home as her child’s father. The requirements of the program are that she must live in a clean and sober home, and not surprisingly, she and her boyfriend used together. The two petitioned the program for the boyfriend to also be subject to TASP-administered random drug testing, which the court agreed to, with the proviso that the defendant go to jail if the boyfriend’s test was ever positive.
This sort of flexibility would have been impossible in the county system. Thus, through TASP, both are staying clean and 438 161 Id. 162 This is not a net jail cost savings, but rather, evidence of a more cost-effective way to serve a larger custody population. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. sober, learning how to stay organized, taking better care of themselves, and building a more positive family life.163 The consensus at Tulalip seems to be that retrocession was a major step forward for sovereignty, tribal culture, and public safety.
No comments