of vehicles normal law enforcement powers the power to exceed the speed limit power to do what they need to do to respond to an emergency situation however that isn't what we're asking for in this case we've we've asked the court to find out when when traveling off reservation that the vehicles be permitted to have uncovered but after ration all emergency light we would be satisfied we would be delighted with a with a ruling that gave us nothing more to use you and that is mescaleros says for off reservation activities by her tribe i'm paraphrasing the state has to treat the tribe no differently from i would the way would treat other comparably situated before which brings the tribal officer in a situation that is more comparable to a federal law enforcement officer such that similar treatment of similarly situated people gives you a struggle national their argument it a mescalero argument in your brief well i think your honor i think we indicated that the language yes and we indicated that the court the district court had erred in applying the mescalero test and we gave a number of reasons why that was incorrect under my under mescalero even and left it this way even under mescalero there is still normal federal conflict preemption available to the try and we submit that given the  pastor this case given the deputation agreement with the bureau of indian affairs given the special law enforcement commissions that essentially federalized the tribal law enforcement operation here that we have a direct conflict  between the counties interpretation section once of sixty five and the federally mandated requirements that tribal police vehicles operating under these agreements have operational vehicle lights on the roads so there was clearly a direct conflict  think they both in crude and the counties perceived interests here because the county is saying under neither circumstance or we are entitled to have the lights we think there are different reasons why the court can conclude that we are entitled to them but i think in any  event we acquire the court request that the court take a position contrary to their interpretations of the statute well we don't have to reach the christian question if we say that they're treating you differently than they're treating abutting stakes you don't have to you don't have to reach a preemption agreement of the preemption argument under either of our first two theories one is a commission or helmets letter the highway commission of the commissioner of the highway patrol has written a letter basically saying in we think fairly clear completely different footing he has the statutory authority under one sixty five that to determine that vehicles and don't meet any of the other categories don't fall into the other categories can be treated as authorized emergency vehicles for certain purposes primary argument is that this is a preemption case that's not a worse well preemption frankly i think it's a third fallback position i think the commissioners letter is first second that desiccation agreement in another cell transforms the more difficult and complicated issue but the let me address preemption because i think there are you know there are two issues that need to be addressed what standard applies and what law in our view has this preemptive force now you don't make and you know maybe i didn't make myself clear we say that mescalero nafta correct standard but even even if it were the applicable standard we can meet that standard under under normal conflict preemption requirements  vehicle lights on the roof of view of police vehicles and the county's interpretation section one sixty five rules makes everybody's life easier but in this case they did it by reading a critical of qualifying word out of the mescalero decision and that is generally the supreme court messed with i wasn't saying every time the tri true as a as an absolute proposition one going to strike you some cases we've cited a number of cases in which courts have held the trial vehicles pretty far off the reservation are not subject to the normal state laws but more importantly and this case is go the private way but there's a second smaller element of this case and that involves whether the states put imply a vehicle license tax to tribally license vehicles that operate both on and off the reservation and the painters one but let me talk for just a moment about the mandatory nature of these federal standards because it's a critical issue and if you get to the preemption case the question is is there a conflict between federal law federal requirement and the and operated by the federal government or an agency in their own now obviously need to be a culture not owned by the federal government or an agency thereof so the only thing the only option you have is it operated by the i was dangerous clearly not operated by the united states here but then when you understand my problem well i understand yes i understand your concern i think three other things need to keep in mind the size the language of the deputation agreement you have the fact that these tribal vehicles are operating with the united states government license plates  cars are using federal license plates can that public take part and get federal funding and in order to get special law enforcement commissions the officers have to go through mandatory federal training so we think all those things together clearly  federal officers they're not forcing federal law enforcing their own lawrence i know you're on the armed forces federal law that's the whole point of the deputation agreement in this and the special law enforcement commissions they are authorized under that that would make this case dramatically different than what is here the concerns probably less than just displaying them although there is some disruption from that i mean we don't allow regular people to have red light force because there is an effect on traffic what are your flashing them or not they slow down quickly what have well you know i've seen police officers parked their car beside the road me so that they will slow down what's your objection to bringing people down to the speed limit well usually a like that right depended against if you have a car doing it constantly on the face of the highway patrol could be an emergency call the same thing that the california police officers do every day there are trained police officers for the project that are certified and trained just like the county and state police are trained so what is ability of california have any control over training tribal police or recognition of them as police officers on reservation land the short answer is they don't let me ask you let me ask you this you know we've got like this building here even though they may not come within the precise terms of one sixty five and i mean that's an argument i don't want to but just for the purposes of argument let's say for a moment does not come within the precise terms of the it might nonetheless come within the terms of the  similarly situated with other vehicles that are allowed to have emergency lights and even to use them in amazement turned out to me that you look at the other vehicles that are allowed to have and to use them as you look at that list all those people have been ok but it's a different argument now than it was before the debate is age an agreement was signed i used to say the comparability of analysis is a different comparability because you're comparing a different tribe wednesday or tribal officer than you were the declaration of robert tech a face tab seventy seven a in the excerpts of record mr eko face the director of the office of law enforcement services for the bureau of indian affairs and a paragraph fifteen through eighteen he specifically talks about feel i may not have made myself clear on this point the deputation agreement does two things it's for the specifically authorized cabs on law enforcement to be kept in law enforcement officers two to enforce federal law  power they didn't have before the decade of the deputation dream was entered into but but equally as important it also federalizes these officers for law enforcement purposes and there are provisions in the agreement section two  of the agreement says such commissions shall grant the officers the same law enforcement authority as that of officers of the commission agency and i don't think that we could be clear once your commission to the tribal officer you have the same law it's twenty eight over four after that specifically says that under these types of agreements tribal officers are also treated as federal employees for certain specified federal criminal laws including murder of  a law enforcement agent or assault on a law enforcement agent so if you go out and murder a cabazon police officer of one of these commissions you has in effect murder a federal official and you are true and you are punishable under the heightened punishments applicable to discriminatory state laws normal conflict preemption under federal law would still apply to these officers but my question is is it possible to see this as discriminatory i think it certainly is but in fact you know in fairness in candor we didn't prevent as you know i was going more to the issue of assuming there nondiscriminatory this conflict preemption apply here yes and there is a direct conflict between the federal mandate that you have these like bars and the counties position and you can't have these