Olson v. N.D. Dep't of Transp., 909 N.W.2d 676

Background

Olson, an enrolled member of the Turtle Mountain Chippewa Tribe, was found asleep at the wheel on May 13, 2017 on Fort Berthold Reservation by a Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation (MHA) officer.
The MHA officer requested assistance from Mountrail County; a county deputy responded, conducted sobriety tests, arrested Olson for DUI, read Miranda and implied consent warnings, and Olson refused a breath test.
The Department of Transportation revoked Olson’s driver’s license for two years under N.D.C.C. ch. 39-20 (refusal to submit to chemical testing); Olson requested an administrative hearing and timely appealed.
At hearing the deputy and MHA officer testified they did not know Olson was a tribal member at the time of the stop; Olson later produced tribal ID showing Turtle Mountain enrollment.
The administrative hearing officer and the district court upheld the revocation, reasoning the deputy had authority to arrest based on the MHA officer’s request for assistance.
The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed, holding the State lacked criminal jurisdiction to arrest a non-member Indian on MHA tribal land absent tribal authorization or an intergovernmental agreement.

Issues

Issue	Olson's Argument	Department's Argument	Held
Whether the deputy had authority to arrest Olson on tribal land	Arrest invalid because MHA (tribe) — not State — has criminal jurisdiction over non-member Indians on tribal land; a valid arrest is required for license revocation	The MHA officer’s request for assistance under N.D.C.C. § 44-08-20 extended State authority to arrest on tribal land	Held: Deputy lacked authority; State did not have criminal jurisdiction absent tribal authorization or agreement, so arrest was invalid
Whether a valid arrest is a prerequisite to administrative revocation under N.D.C.C. ch. 39-20	Revocation invalid without a lawful arrest for purposes of refusal-based revocation statute	Department relied on the arrest as valid and statutes permitting assistance between officers	Held: Valid arrest is required; because arrest was invalid, revocation was not in accordance with law
Whether state law (N.D.C.C. § 44-08-20) can unilaterally extend criminal jurisdiction into tribal lands via a request for assistance	N/A (Olson focused on jurisdictional limits)	§ 44-08-20 gives peace officers authority to assist and thus authorizes arrest when requested by tribal officer	Held: § 44-08-20 cannot unilaterally extend State criminal jurisdiction into tribal territory; absent statutory authorization or intergovernmental agreement the State lacks power to arrest there
Whether precedent or federal law (25 U.S.C. § 1301 / Lara) affects jurisdiction over non-member Indians	Tribal jurisdiction over non-member Indians is recognized under Lara; thus tribe had primary criminal jurisdiction	Department contended assistance request sufficed; cited other authority distinguishing civil/regulatory matters	Held: Lara confirms tribes can exercise criminal jurisdiction over all Indians; State criminal jurisdiction would undermine tribal self-government here

Key Cases Cited

Vanlishout v. N.D. Dep't of Transp., 799 N.W.2d 397 (N.D. 2011) (standard of review for administrative license revocation)
Kroschel v. Levi, 866 N.W.2d 109 (N.D. 2015) (arrest validity prerequisite for chemical-test-refusal revocation)
State v. Wilkie, 895 N.W.2d 742 (N.D. 2017) (state officers possess arrest authority when they have criminal jurisdiction)
Three Affiliated Tribes v. Wold Eng'g, P.C., 467 U.S. 138 (U.S. 1984) (state assertion of authority may be foreclosed if it undermines tribal self-government)
White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136 (U.S. 1980) (limits on state authority in Indian country)
Duro v. Reina, 495 U.S. 676 (U.S. 1990) (pre-amendment limitation on tribal jurisdiction to members)
United States v. Lara, 541 U.S. 193 (U.S. 2004) (Congress authorized tribes to exercise criminal jurisdiction over all Indians)
Davis v. O'Keefe, 283 N.W.2d 73 (N.D. 1979) (state cannot unilaterally assume criminal jurisdiction over reservations without congressional procedures)
Piotrowski v. Comm'r of Pub. Safety, 453 N.W.2d 689 (Minn. 1990) (interstate/agency agreements can validate cross-jurisdictional arrests)
State v. Hook, 476 N.W.2d 565 (N.D. 1991) (generally arrests must occur within arresting authority's territorial jurisdiction)