United States v. Joshua Cooley, 919 F.3d 1135

Background

In the early morning on Route 212 (a public right-of-way within the Crow Reservation), Crow police officer James Saylor approached Joshua Cooley, who was stopped in a truck with a child; Saylor questioned Cooley about his travel and observed signs Saylor considered suspicious (watery/bloodshot eyes, agitation, rifles visible, small plastic bags).
Saylor never asked Cooley whether he was an Indian, but believed Cooley “seemed to be non-native” based on appearance alone.
During the encounter Saylor unholstered his firearm, ordered Cooley to show his hands, obtained Cooley’s ID, discovered a pistol, removed Cooley from the truck, patted him down, and found small empty plastic bags; Saylor later searched the truck and found a glass pipe and a bag that appeared to contain methamphetamine; a later directed search uncovered more methamphetamine.
Cooley was charged federally with possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine (21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)) and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)).
Cooley moved to suppress evidence, arguing Saylor exceeded tribal jurisdiction in detaining and searching a non-Indian on a public right-of-way in violation of the Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA); the district court granted the motion and the government appealed.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed suppression, holding Saylor exceeded tribal authority by detaining and twice searching Cooley without first ascertaining his Indian status, and held the exclusionary rule applies to violations of ICRA’s Fourth Amendment analogue.

Issues

Issue	Cooley's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether tribal officer could detain/search a person on a public right-of-way without first determining Indian status	Saylor seized and searched Cooley (a non-Indian) outside tribal authority because he never ascertained Indian status	Tribal officer had authority to detain/search based on observed conduct and public-safety concerns	Held: Officer exceeded tribal authority by detaining/searching a person he treated as non-Indian without first asking/ascertaining status; detention/search beyond limited inquiry was unlawful
Whether assuming Indian status from appearance is permissible for jurisdictional purposes	Appearance-based assumption violated limits on tribal authority; officer must ask when status unknown	Officer’s view of appearance and conduct justified continuing investigation	Held: Physical appearance alone cannot establish Indian status; officer must attempt to ascertain status before detaining/searching on public right-of-way
Whether evidence obtained in violation of ICRA’s Fourth Amendment analogue must be suppressed in federal prosecutions	Evidence should be suppressed because ICRA protects against unreasonable searches/seizures and mirrors Fourth Amendment protections	Government argued suppression appropriate if ICRA violated but questioned scope; raised no successful contrary remedy argument	Held: Exclusionary rule applies in federal court to violations of ICRA’s Fourth Amendment counterpart; suppression appropriate
Whether acting outside tribal jurisdiction automatically renders a search/seizure unreasonable under ICRA	Saylor’s extra-jurisdictional actions make seizure/search unreasonable and fruits must be suppressed	Not all extra-jurisdictional acts are per se unreasonable; historic/common-law exceptions exist (e.g., private-person seizure of felon)	Held: Exceeding tribal jurisdiction is highly relevant; here, under founding-era common-law analogies, Saylor’s detention and two searches were unreasonable and violated ICRA, so suppression proper

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Lara, 541 U.S. 193 (2004) (tribal criminal jurisdiction limited to Indians and nonmember Indians)
Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191 (1978) (tribes lack criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians)
Duro v. Reina, 495 U.S. 676 (1990) (tribal authority limited with respect to nonmembers)
Strate v. A-1 Contractors, 520 U.S. 438 (1997) (limits on tribal power over public rights-of-way crossing reservations)
Bressi v. Ford, 575 F.3d 891 (9th Cir. 2009) (tribal officers may detain to ascertain Indian status; limited authority on rights-of-way)
United States v. Patch, 114 F.3d 131 (9th Cir. 1997) (initial limited inquiry to determine Indian status)
United States v. Zepeda, 792 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir. 2015) (defining Indian status requirements)
United States v. Antelope, 430 U.S. 641 (1977) (distinguishing Indian status from race)
United States v. Becerra-Garcia, 397 F.3d 1167 (9th Cir. 2005) (assumed application of exclusionary rule to ICRA violations)
United States v. Henderson, 906 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2018) (historical/common-law analysis on jurisdictional limits and Rule 41 implications)
Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914) (foundation of the exclusionary rule in federal prosecutions)
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) (exclusionary rule incorporation to state courts)
Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206 (1960) (exclusionary rule applied to state officers' violations in federal court)