please the court counsel my name is kim dieter and i represent the appellant in this matter nathan class and i'd like to reserve two minutes of my time this why may mr cloud appeals basically the district court's denial of his suppression motion and that the arrest was unlawful and therefore the subsequent search the fruits of the subsequent search required suppression there are two main bases that we maintain the arrest was unlawful the first is th simpler of the two analysis and that under state law which is a political in this case because the arresting officers were on the reservation and were county sheriff's office officers the arrest was unlawful because the i looked and i couldn't find authority that set that up as a requirement or define clearly what was required in it's a it's a long line of precedent cases in the state of washington  starting with the barnes case and the elwood cases that were cited in our brief well you know i looked at those cases and and those don't seem to be the same to me the problem in barns is that the individual told the officer that the warrant had been cleared some time before and the officers knowledge of the warrant was dated and in this case the officer was the go the warrant had not been cleared in the office it was aware from that same day that it existed and elwood the problem was in a failure to confirm the problem was that the initial stop wasn't based on reasonable suspicion so i'm still grasping for a where this purported requirement that the officer has to do something more than be currently aware that there was in fact a warrant outstanding what's what's confirming and where's it come from will confirm will allow the i don't think the cases you cited do it so point me to a case that does well there's also the trade that case that cited by the government in that case an officer was aware and i'll get back to being aware of whether or not there was a warrant because in this case the officers it was unclear whether they even possessed the physical warrant the one officer testified that he had heard about a warrant the warrant was a couple of weeks old maybe three weeks old he had never bothered to confirm to see if that if that warrant was indeed valid in these  cases with the washington cases with the washing courts are saying that if you are going to and in washington the constitution their constitution gives an elevated status to their citizens under article one section seven higher then they have a greater expectation of privacy than what's afforded to the fourth amendment however what the washington courts have said is when you cannot detain somebody or arrest somebody based on a and i still tried trying to figure out what it means to confirm i mean in this case we have a radio log showing that there was a check of some kind i don't think we have the details but the suggestion is ok's this the guy he's the guy i mean why wouldn't that satisfy whatever requirement is established under the washington cases where the officer stated on cross examination that he did not confirm the warrant in their database they don't have confirmation that the warrant is still active or that the warrant is valley what they have in their database is the information they have on the information such as an address they were specifically looking at that database on mr cloud so that they could see his picture so that the deputies could identify him when they them the information but the officers testified straightforward that they did not confirm the warrant so we have that regardless of what system they looked in and they didn't make a call the dispatch they did not call to confirm that warrant which is what they did on mr clouds warrant after he had been arrested searched questioned cuffed taken to the police car and taken to the and driven to the jail   don't get any further if the court's not convinced that state law requires confirmation of a warrant so i will i will come back to that in my in my rebuttal i look at the trinidad case and discuss that case the second issue is whether or not the officers there arrest of mr cloud whether or not they violated tribal sovereignty when they arrested mr cloud on trust land within the boundaries of the reservation the washington state court opinion on point is washington state the clark and that's the washington supreme court there the state held that tribal sovereignty is infringed by the state in the execution of state warrant service when that happens the warrant is invalidated invalidated in the subsequent arrest or search is unreasonable under the fourth is that make a difference whether the war is for a violation of tribal law or state law i think it makes a difference if there well the supreme court case has said if it's hicks the united states supreme court said that there's they found no violation of tribal sovereignty when agents with a legitimate wash with a legitimate state warrant and to reservation for purposes  troubling sovereignty is whether the state agents follow travel procedure for the execution of the state warrant here there are several distinguishable facts first and foremost and distinguishable from hicks itself the reason i ask that is that there was concurrent criminal jurisdiction in the clark case and i don't see that here so if it's a violation of state criminal law aren't the officers entitle to enforce it even on tribal  lands they are so long as they and the clerk case so long as they follow tribal procedure and that the big question there was for an off reservation crime in this case the the allegation is that he violated his supervised release or his community custody his community custody officer his office is in the bounds of the reservation so that warrant issued from within the boundaries of the reservation and mr cloud was found on trust property within the boundaries of the reservation so there's another distinguishing term and i've if i have answered your question i'd like to reserve save the rest of your may please korten counsel i'm james baker i represent the united states i'd like to go first that clarke case carcase is not relevant to this discussion at all so if i understand one one of the things that happened here was there was a complete failure to comply with the memorandum of understanding between the county and the tribe but your position is that that's just words and not binding that's also the district courts position yeah and i on the theory that  united states has always broken its word to the indians why not here again well i don't think that's what the district court said your honor but i know you didn't put it that seems to be history the the that this memorandum of understanding of the pie understand your position and and agree with you and me will be well supported by the law is a worthless piece of paper in so many words it could be characterized that way but i would say i would put a different spin on it i would put the governor's perspective isn't they can just ignore this they should just ignore this willfully i think the facts before this your court the suppression hearing did not establish that they were cavalier in their ignoring the memorandum they didn't know the test of that the testimony of the officers at the suppression hearing was they did not know at the time that the residence where they arrested the defendant on a checkerboard reservation where there's a lot can be trust land a law can be feeling and it's not call tribal police and they will follow the memorandum if they know that the land they're going to find the defendant is trust land could they have been a little bit more diligent potentially but it has no legal significance and that's why clark has no legal significance because the memory of understanding is just that it's an agreement between the parties that has various provisions in it that talk about it's not in force was the third parties that changes nothing about jurisdiction nothing about  criminal law nothing about the participants abilities so that's not clark clark was talking about an actual regulations that procedures that were insuring in tribal i don't disagree with that i'd just commenting on what i think is the reality what a dubious document this memorandum of understanding is the government from the government's perspective of the federal would trigger it when necessary but that's the situation we have here is that this can this memory of understanding confers no rights of the defendant hicks is in complete control of this case it doesn't matter that the  c officer sat within the external boundaries of the reservation when he issued the arrest warrant the cully cannot say that he was on trial and did that and he was a state sovereignty that the state and hicks is directly on point in this situation this is about the execution of state process state legal process on tribal and hicks allows for that and none of the cases cited by the defense change that and as to this issue about the  understand confirmed or require i understand it to do to be exactly what they did they got into a database they were aware that a warrant was present they did that before contact with the defendant they did a double confirmation after he was in what they didn't get is did the database disclose whether the warrant was current the testimony as i understand it at the suppression hearing said i'm looking at a our a ninety seven and this is the testimony of deputy mcilrath and in the morning before you went out to do your warrant service did you engage anita in any type of checks yes and specifically did you do a warrant check on an individual by the name of nathan got the defendant in this testimony from the suppression or did not go into that specific and and part of my confusion years i'm trying to infer what this means in the database and i accept there could be a mistake sometimes you don't get it updated but it seems to me what distinguished this case from the cases relied upon by the defense were that in those cases in one case the defendant said specific be correctly that the warranted been cleared in trinidad the premise was the warrant had been so the question becomes after the time of these events did the officers have a legitimate basis to believe there was at that point in time an outstanding warrant and your understanding of the testimony you just read the warr check you think constitutes that test i do and more importantly than what i think the district court thought so so with the factual determination that's been memorialized both in the courts oral rulings at the time of the suppression hearing and the court's written ruling so that's a hurdle  defense of the overcome and that the nothing that they've submitted in their briefing overcomes that hurdle so we have what we have we have a valid arrest warrant not contested issued by the al states all right they executed at a location which can says they can go on to tribal land and execute that piece of state process they did so when they did what they what they found when they arrested the defendant they found they did a search incident to arrest there's no serious dispute that they can't do a search  that's just ridiculous and the district court followed the procedures under the application notes and the presiding over that over the trial so there's certainly no two level we're talking for acceptance of responsibility the warrant had been quiet so the issue was whether the officers alleged good faith belief that there was a warrant was sufficient but the problem was that there wasn't a valid warrant and i don't see how about applies to this case well i think it applies only in that the court has a question and i know the united states thinks or believes that checking the spillman database is akin to confirming a warrant the incident has to fight i checked the warrant by accessing the state database and there was a warrant outstanding there's an inference that the database accurately reflects the fact that there's a warrant outstanding was there any cross examination to sort of undermine the validity or accuracy of this case no but the the officer on cross examination distinctly said that he had not confirmed the warrant prior to and i know that there wasn't warrant right but there was a war and that's what makes what makes this case unlike trinidad because you couldn't have a good faith belief because you hadn't checked in this case he didn't need to rely on a good faith belief there was a warrant and i still am looking for the the alleged obligation to check something if in fact there's not a question warrant or are withdrawn a warrant so that there's a mistake made here there's no mistake there was a warrant what additional requirement is there well hicks case rules this case however the clark case the washington supreme court case stated that where you can distinguish the facts of the case from hicks that the test in matthews is the starting point and that is if they write the matter submitted for decision by the court we thank both sides of your argument