1 / 12

Inyo County VS. Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Community

Inyo County VS. Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Community. By Katie Davidson. Who are the Paiutes?. The Paiutes are a tribe that live in the Owen Valley area near Bishop, California. The Bishop Paiute Tribe is the fifth largest California Tribe with over 2,000 members.

kara
Télécharger la présentation

Inyo County VS. Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Community

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Inyo County VS. Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Community By Katie Davidson

  2. Who are the Paiutes? • The Paiutes are a tribe that live in the Owen Valley area near Bishop, California. • The Bishop Paiute Tribe is the fifth largest California Tribe with over 2,000 members.

  3. When did the Casino Open? • The Paiute Palace Casino was established in October of 1995. • The following year the new Casino was opened.

  4. How does the casino help? • The casino has 275 slot machines and six game tables that provide economic lifeblood to the Bishop Paiute Indian Tribe. • The casino supports the 1600 members of the Bishop Paiute Indian Tribe.

  5. What went wrong? • The Inyo County law enforcement thought there was welfare fraud being committed by employees of the casino. • They obtained a search warrant and broke into the employees files.

  6. More Mistakes • Instead of just taking the files on the three men suspected of the fraud the law enforcement officials took 81 confidential files. • This was settled when the case was thrown out due to a lack of probable cause. • Then four months later Inyo County wanted more records!

  7. The line was crossed • The Paiutes did not take the request very well and filed suit in a federal district cout on Aug 4th. • They were “seeking injunctive and declaratory relief against further violations of the tribe’s sovereign immunity by Inyo County.”

  8. Public Law 280 • Granted California criminal jurisdiction over offenses committed by or against Indians. • This was what the Inyo County had as justification for its actions. • The court agreed and ruled in favor of Inyo County

  9. 9th Circuit Court • January, 2002:Two years later the 9th Circuit Court sided with the Paiutes. • The court ruled that P.L. 280 did not justify the actions of Inyo law enforcement because the statute extends state jurisdiction to individual Indians but not to tribes as a whole. • Inyo County violated the sovereign immunity.

  10. The Scramble • In May 2002 the Inyo County petition for a review by the full 9th Circuit, but the request was denied. • However, on December 2, 2002 the U.S. Supreme Court agree to review the case because of its significance to the relationship between sovereign nations and law enforcement agencies.

  11. The Final Answer • On May 19, 2003 the Supreme Court reversed the 9th Circuit Courts decision and sided with Inyo County. • Saying that “tribes, like states, are not “citizens” or “persons” under the federal civil rights statute, it does not follow from traditional tribal immunity that the tribe itself may sue to remedy the wrong of a government wrongfully exercising a warrant on its property.”

  12. Sources • http://journalism.medill.northwestern.edu/docket/02-0281casinos.html • http://journalism.medill.norhtwestern.edu/docket/action.lasso?-database+docket&-layout+lasso&-response=%2fdocket%2fdetail.srch&-recordID+33119&-search • 34th Annual Mule Days Celebration

More Related