Appellant Brief - Turtle Talk

presence on the Reservation and often do not respond even when requested to deal
with a non-Indian criminal matter.
In concluding that the right-of-way in Strate was equivalent to non-Indian
fee land, the Strate court expressly relied on the fact that “traffic on [the right-of-
way] is subject to the State’s control.” 520 U.S. at 455-56. It then explained that
tribal police would still have authority “to detain and turn over to state officers
nonmembers stopped on the highway for conduct violating state law.” Id. at 455-
56, n. 11 (emphasis added). The Court did not conclude that exercise of tribal
police authority is irrelevant to the jurisdictional analysis but simply explained that
even when a right-of-way is equivalent to non-Indian fee land, tribal police may
patrol that right-of-way on the state’s behalf. Here, the Tribal Court expects to be
able to show that the tribal police patrol the right-of-way not on behalf of the state,
but on behalf of the Tribe and to the exclusion of the State.
Here, unlike in Strate, the Band consented at most to only a limited grant of
right-of-way, the Band retained and has maintained its regulatory authority, and
both the Band and the State of Minnesota have long respected this understanding.
A19-21 5, 9-11, JA0214-17. Under the facts of this case, the right-of-way here
should be considered tribal land, not “alienated” non-Indian land within the
meaning of Strate. In accordance with this conclusion, this Court should conclude
that the Tribal Court has jurisdiction over the Nords regarding their conduct on
31