some of your time that that is correct or are you have a total of fifteen minutes per side so however you share it's and you're going first so you're going to be crowding his remaining time i just suggest you keep that in mind thank you as i was preparing my comments for today's hearing going through the papers that have been on file i noticed that the jury the papers set forth what is an agreement between parties whether or not this court is looking at the first agreement be between the bureau of indian affairs and healing river indian and i think ninety eight six thirty eight contract or whether or not they're looking under of the to the two thousand and three self governance contact with the two thousand and seven funding agreement the federal tort claims act applies cover to hear what you know i must say i'm who puzzled why you were you were rely on the u s six thirty eight agreement since the six thirty eight agreement seems to be directed at tribal law within the reservation where as when you get down to the self governance calm compact funding agreement it's not at all clear to me that that's officers have to be acting with the course and scope of their employment carrying out the agreed to police functions of the no no no no carrying out a contract contract or agreement so do you wish to zeros in on your contention what contract or agreement this police officer was carrying out when he stepped out of his car at a red light to see if the driver of the car in front of  him was in control of his car that is correct i would we would contend that the subsequent two thousand and three compact and the funding agreed to both general outline general parameters of the police program that is that is operated by it could you give me a citation of chapter and verse page number preferably two hundred two thousand three compact which says that brick  have the right with the same answer obtained as to the funding agreement that is correct so you want us to hide that obligation from some other language that is correct and tell me what is the peace officer this is the certification and that with the bureau of indian affairs requires that they have this ready and they have the certification and conversely while there is it says that they have to be carrying out the contract or agreement the bit the fact that they were all surprised or train to do the arrest doesn't mean that they had the obligation to do it be performers to do the obligation tell me what contract was there and who was the obligation of the contract that the officer should have stepped out of his car deposition his phone his just his purpose of getting out of the car was not to enforce state laws he was not attempting to stop them and he was that they didn't attempt to pull a car over he merely wanted to rush towards the car not on the guy's window and say hey slow it down so i don't think he was that he was well as presumably enforcing state laws of the he he's operating under the authority that is given to him under the state but i'm not sure what what state law he's please the court good morning my name is tom murphy and i'm here on behalf of the heel river community this case raises a straightforward issue about whether tribal police officers who were acting in the course and scope of their employment in a program contracted under a self determination community contends that they were in regard to the house we've pretty much heard this argument from your colleague what additional focus do you want to take into account the additional focus would this judge's scale and that the contacts between the united states and indian tribes allow those tribes to perform functions that were previously performed by the united states for example with regard to indian tribes prior to there would have been a b i police department serve see the tribes the question in this particular case would be whether or not those if the cia officers had been performing the same activities would they have been covered under the f c c i think the answer is clearly else i think none of the authority comes from the indian law enforcement or for magyar but i think also the b i was performing police services on indian nations long before the indian law enforcement reform act and those were the functions that were transferred to the communit arizona the arizona is court of appeals has held that arizona post certification which is a certification not a trying requirement that is required under the communities then current multi year funny agreement allows when that was in acted in one nine hundred seventy two does it matter does it matter that they were returning from a training mission when this happened or were they state police officers under azing post irrespective of whether they permitted to do under to be eyes on policies or not carrying out the compact community believes that that this is a result that that is contrary to law and urges reversal and counsel what is the strongest argument you can give us th have a contract or agreement specifically authorizes the enforcement of state laws i'm looking for that i haven't to any off the reservation activities these tribal police officers and gauging your honor when it's quite a stretch isn't it no it isn't when section three fourteen was adopted the only legislative history of the extension compact does anything that's in the course of his employment then the united states would be on the hook under the afton ca and that is not what i think that's means section three fourteen provides course that when there is a six thirty eight contract a compact and an employee is working with them this is in the scope of his employment in carrying out the contract then the united states will be liable i mean the f t c a if congress had intended to cover any action  by an employee under six kerry contract it would have written that section to to say well whenever there is a contract whenever there's a contract between a try and the government under six thirty eight a problem employee is not a federal employee except when under the f t c a it would set some language so does that  now counsel of argue that the original six thirty eight contract was completely expired and has no relevance here however small time your funding agreement and the two continue to run programs that would serve the interests of unity on if we had never taken the position that there was anything wrong with what the officers did here they were authorized to do that under arizona law under their arizona hosts patient it's just that that wasn't what he had a contract with them for and i did the only place i can see where it might have saying you must be a z coast certified in the be a z post certify you become a state peace officer for certain purposes the government said they had to do that and that was law and historically there's been a problem i'm in reference reservations will there being a lack of response time say if there was a state crime and the programs and that this and the taxman to you saying that limitation comes from six thirty six to eight agreed that the original agreement and in the funding agreement they do repeat everything that was from six thirty eight conflict but i'm saying that's implying that the limitation of powers that come with being easy post certified arizona post certified are limited by six and and under the regional agreement the contract agreement was that greek was supposed to provide the law enforcement service i have that's exactly get hung up i have no problem with your position at all if it's six thirty eight because six thirty eight does not apply to all of reservation activity that's my understanding and they and that's right and my question is is that still the case after the funding agreement which requires them to be arizona post certified and arizona post certified under state law requires them to do a variety of things it's not it doesn't say you can do i mean  certify and the question is supposing supposing arizona post however arizona post certification means let's assume this was a means that they were some one way or another sin there they were required to stop that car that day are you saying you're saying that the government the federal government would be was sponsible for that because that's under arizona law and not under federal law cooperate between federal state and tribal police force or operate with each other and what you're saying that cooperation the federal government has no responsibility for that cooperation when the purse separately and off the reservation doesn't have any effect in this case further so we're looking just at the plumbing we're looking just at the point that's correct and then finally the six thirty eight agreement in section one  talks about that the services shall be provide under the six thirty eight agreement section one hundred two point one in the excerpt of record at page sixty seven states of the services shall be provided in accordance with the find  only look at the four corners of this document and find that these travel offices are only exclusively permitted to perform to its worst federal law probably that was erroneous because that section one hundred two point one allows a court to look outside the document and into court cases and what has been written and see very well thank you counsel the case just your good will be submitted for decision