Appellant Brief - Turtle Talk

l. that the State and County law enforcement providers
often do not come to the Reservation even when the Band requests
their presence for a specific purpose; 11
m. that the Band, not the County or the State, undertakes certain routine
(non-construction) maintenance on the highway at issue;
JA0201-04.
n. that before the Minnesota Department of Transportation
undertakes any maintenance action relating to the highway at issue, it seeks
permission from the Band to undertake the activity;
o. that the Band often requires the Minnesota Department of
Transportation to comply with tribal employment laws for state road projects
on the Reservation; and
p. that the Defendants had a consensual relationship with the
Band, its members, or both.
The Hobson Affidavit makes the good faith showing required by the rule.
If allowed to conduct its discovery, the Tribal Court expects to present evidence
that would allow for summary judgment in the Tribal Court’s favor or, at a
minimum, create a genuine issue of material fact to defeat summary judgment.
11 Under Oliphant v. Suquamish Tribe, 435 U.S. 191 (1978), the state, and not
the Band, has jurisdiction over criminal conduct by non-Indians on the Reservation.
Thus, the Tribal Court expects it would be able to show that the presence of the State
Police or the County Sheriff is requested only when a non-Indian is detained for
criminal conduct, even though they do not always respond when requested. In
contrast, the Band expects to be able to show that tribal police officers routinely issue
civil citations to non-Indians for traffic infractions on the highway at issue.
40