Th is d e c isi on wa s n ot s e le c te d f

or pu bli c atio n in the Ne w Me xico Ap pe llate Re po rt s. Ple a se se e Rul e 12-405 NMRA for

restric tions on the c itation of non-pre cede ntial dispositions. Plea se also note that this electronic decision may contain computer-g ener ated error s or ot her de viations from the off icial paper version filed by

the Supreme Court. 1 IN TH E SUPREME COURT O F THE ST ATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 F ili ng D at e: D ec em be r 18, 201 4 3 N O. 34, 487 4 STA TE OF NE W MEX ICO, 5 Plaintiff-P etitioner, 6 v. 7 DEL VIN CH ARLIE, 8 D ef

en dant- Re spon de nt. 9 Consolidated w ith: 10 N O. 34, 488 11 STA TE OF NE W MEX ICO, 12 Plaintiff-P etitioner, 13 v. 14 RU DYNO RBE RTO , 15 D ef

en dant- Re spon de nt.

16 ORI GI NAL PROCEEDI NGS ON CERT IO RARI1 Joh n A . D ea n, Jr . , D ist ri ctJu dg e

2 Gary K. King, Attorney

Ge neral 3 Jacqueline R. M edina, A ssistant Attorney Ge neral 4 San ta Fe, NM 5 for Pe tition er

6 Jorge A. Alvar ado, Chief Public De fender 7 B. Douglas W ood, III , A ssistant Appellate D efender 8 San ta Fe, NM 9 fo r Re spon de nts

10 DISPO SI TI ONAL ORDER O F REVERSAL 11 { 1} T h e a b o v e - e n t i t l e da n dn u mb e r e dap p e a l h a v i n g c o me b e f o r e th e S up r e me 12 Co urt, ea ch m em

be r of the Co urt ha vin g re ad the br ie fs of the part ie s, an d othe rw ise 13 ha vin g bee n full y inf

orm ed on the iss ue s and a ppl ic ab le lawa s r ai se d and b ri ef ed by 14 the part ie s; and 15 { 2} E ac h Ju sti ce ha vin g c onc ur re d th at the re is no r ea sona

ble li ke lih ood that a 16 de ci sio n or

opi nio n w oul d a ff

ec t the dis posi tio n of this appe al or a dvanc e the lawof 17 the State; there fore, 18 IT IS A DJU DGE D T HAT : 19 { 3} Defen da nts D el vinCh ar lie a nd R udy N or be rt o are N av aj o N at ionm em be rs . 20 The ba si c fac ts of th ei r cas es are u nd is pu te d. Sta te v . Ch arl ie , N o. 32, 504, m em . op.2

1 ¶ 2 (N

. M. Ct

. App. D ec . 4, 201 3) ( non- pr ec ed en tia l) ; Sta te v. No rbe rto , N o. 32, 353, 2 m em . op. ¶

2 (N

. M. Ct

. App. D ec . 4, 201 3) ( non- pr ec ed en tia l)

. I n tw o se parate 3 inc ide nts , both D ef

en dants w er e sus pe ct ed of dr ivi ng w hil e int oxi cate d (D W I) f ro m 4 state land o nto the N av aj o r es er va tio n. T he y

w er e subs eque ntl y

sto ppe d onthe 5 Nav ajo re se rv at io n b y

New M ex ic o S ta te Po li ce o ffi cers . Ch arl ie , N o . 3 2 , 5 0 4 , me m. 6 op. ¶ 2; No rbe rto , N o. 32,3 53 , m em . op. ¶ 2. Ch ar lie w as sto ppe d by O ff ic er P au l 7 Gon zal es an d No rb ert o was st op pe d b y Offic er J os ep h S ch ak e. Id . Upo n s top pin g 8 D ef en dant s, the S ta te P oli ce of fi ce rs c om

m en ce d D W I inv es tig at ion s be ca use 9 Ch arl ie an d No rb ert o e xh ib it edsi gn s o f in to xi cat io n. Se e id. 10 { 4} A s part

of the D W I inv es tig at ion s, both D ef en da nts w er e tr an spor

te d of f the 11 N av aj o r es er

va tio n to the S ta te P oli ce of fi ce in Farm ing ton , N ewMe xic o f or 12 ch em ic al tes ti ng . Ch arl ie , N o. 32, 504, m em . op. ¶ 2; No rbe rto , N o. 32, 353, m em . op. 13 ¶ 2. Ch ar lie w as sub

j ect ed to a

br eath a lc ohol te st and N or be rt o, havin g r ef

use d a 14 br eat h a lc oh ol tes t, was su bjec te d t o a bl oo d d raw. Id

. A ft er te sti ng, both D ef en dants 15 were t ran sp or te d b ackto a Nav ajo d et en ti on cen te r in Sh ip ro ck , New Mex ic o. Id

. 16 Both wer e su bsequent ly book ed on tribal charges andlater prosec uted in state court 17 un de r st at e la w. Ch arl ie , N o. 32, 504, m em . op. ¶ ¶ 2- 3; No rbe rto , N o . 3 2 , 3 5 3 , me m. 18 op. ¶¶ 2-3. I n state court, D efendants fi l ed m o t i ons to dism iss for lack of personal 19 j ur isd ic tio n. Bo th of th ema rg ue d th at the S ta te P oli ce of

fi ce rs ’ f ai lur e to f

oll ow 20 Navaj o extradition p rotocols violated tribal sovereigntyso as to preclude state court3

1 pr os ecu ti on . Ch arl ie , N o. 32, 504, m em . op. ¶ 3; No rbe rto , N o. 32, 353, m em . op. ¶ 3. 2 { 5} Inr es pons e to C harl ie ’ s m oti on, the S ta te introduce d O ff ic er G onz al es a s a 3 witness. O ffice r G onzales testified that despite bein g a Stat e Police off icer, he w as 4 cr oss -c om

m iss ion ed by the N av aj o au tho ri tie s to en fo rc e N av aj o law on the 5 re s er v at i o n . The St at e al s o cl ai m ed th at th e p ar t i es s t i p u l at ed t o Of fi ce r G o n za l es ’s 6 cross-com

m issio ning . T he defense did not obj ect to this statem ent. O ffice r G onzales 7 explained that as a cross-com m issio ned officer he wa s trained by Navaj o authorities 8 to transport N ava

j o su sp e cts off the re servation for chem ical testing. O ffice r G onzales 9 claim ed that the Navaj o authorities app roved of this prac tice because: ( 1) there w as 10 a sh or ta ge of v al idst a t e - c e r ti fie d b reat h a lc oh ol tes t m ach in es , and (2) th e Nav ajo 11 re se rv at iondid

not have f ac ili tie s th at

perfo rm ed blood dr aw s f or D W I pur pose s. 12 Ch ar l i e d i dn o tch al l en g e a n y o f t h i s t es t i m o n y. To s up p o rt Of fi ce r G o n z a l es ’s 13 te sti m ony , the S ta te intro duc ed the a ff idavit of aN av aj o po lic e of

fi ce r, L ie ute nant 14 Ph ili p Joe

. In thi s doc um en t, L ie ute nant Joe te sti fi ed that “ [d ] ue to [the ] freq uent 15 unava ila

bil ity of Br eath A lc ohol T es ting eq uip m en t onthe [ N av aj o] Re se rv at ion , 16 cr oss-comm issio n[ed] Ne w Mexico law enforcem ent officer s conductin g DWI 17 inv es tig at ion s w er e per m itt ed to transpo rt

N av aj o r es ide nts of

f [the ] r es er

va tio n f or 18 the pur

pose of a dm ini ste ri ng B re ath A lc ohol te sts . ” Ch ar lie arg ue d that de spi te 19 Of ficer Gonzales’ s cross-com

m issio n and testim ony

concerning his training , O ffice r 20 Gon zal es sti ll ha d to f oll owthe N av aj o e xtr ad iti on p ro ce dur e to transpo rt N av ajo4

1 sus pe ct s of

f the r es er va tio n f or c he m ic al te sti ng. 2 { 6} N or

be rt o’ s m oti on t o di sm iss re ste d on the sa m e pr em ise as Ch ar lie ’ s m oti on 3 to dism iss. In re spon se, the S tate introduced Of ficer Schake a s a w itness. Of ficer 4 Schake also testified that he was a cross-com

m issio ned State Police officer who w as 5 able to enforce Navaj o law on N avaj o land. H e explain ed that Navaj o authorities 6 cross-com

m issio n ed State P olice officer s to reduce response tim es to susp ected 7 Navaj o crim es. O ffice r Sc hake also explained th at because the Navaj o Nation lacked 8 crim e investigatio n resources, transport off the re servation was allow ed to fu rt her 9 N a v a jo c r i mi n a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n s . No r b e rt o f a i l e dt o c h a l l e n g e th i s t e s t i mo n y. 10 { 7} The st at e di st ric t co ur ts de ni ed bo th Defen da nt s’ m ot io ns to di sm is s. Ch arl ie , 11 N o. 32, 504, m em . op. ¶ 3; No rbe rto , N o. 32, 353, m em . op. ¶ 3. Bo th d istri ct c ourts 12 co nc lud ed , a s am atte r of law , that the r es pe ct ive a rr es tin g of fi ce rs w er e (1 ) cr oss 13 co m m is si on ed to e nf

or ce N av aj o law , a nd ( 2) auth or iz ed by the N av aj o N at ionto 14 transport m em

bers of the N avaj o Na tion o ff the r eservation “ to com plete [their] 15 in ve st ig at io n o f . . . D e f en da nt [s ’] po ss ib le vi ol at io n o f Nav ajo Nat io n l aw.” 16 Co nse que ntl y , both c ourts c onc lud ed that tri ba l so ve re ign ty

w as not inf

ri nge d by the 17 fa ilure to fo llo we xtr ad iti on p ro ce dur es . 18 { 8} In s eparate appeals, the N ewMexico Court of Appeals reversed and re m anded 19 bo th cas es ba ckto th ei r res pe ct iv e d is tri ctco ur ts . Ch arl ie , N o. 32, 504, m em . op. ¶ 13; 20 No rbe rto , N o. 32, 353, m em . op. ¶ 12. T he Co urt of Appe al s he ld tha t be ca

use c ro ss-5

1 co m m iss iona gr ee m en ts had to be w ri tte n, the sc ope of aw ai ve r of

tr iba l so ve re ign ty 2 can no t b e es tabl is he d o n e it he r th e b as is of wi tn es s t es ti m on y or a ffi da vi ts . Ch arl ie , 3 N o. 32, 504, m em . op. ¶ ¶ 11- 12; No rbe rto , No. 32,353, m em . op. ¶¶ 10-11 . T he Court 4 of Appe al s re m an de d both ca se s to the dis tr ic t co urts to an al y ze the c ro ss- co m m iss ion 5 agreem ent to d et er m ine the scope of the State P olice officer s’ authority under that 6 ag reem en t. Ch arl ie , N o. 32, 504, m em . op. ¶ 13; No rbe rto , N o. 32, 353, m em . op. ¶ 12. 7 W e gr an te d th e St at e’ s pe tit ionf or writ of c er tio rari in ea chc as e to a ddr es s th e 8 questio n of whether 9 [T ] he Cour t of Appe al s e rr [e d] w he n it r ule d th at und er the f ac ts o f 10 [these] case[ s,] the district court[s we re] re q u ired to reviewthe actual 11 cr oss -c om

m iss ion ag re em en t betw ee n the St at e of N ew Me xic o and the 12 Navaj o Nation prior to deciding whether a cr oss-comm issio ned officer 13 ha d t he au th or it y to tem po rari ly t r a n s po rt a m em be r of f th e Nav ajo 14 Na tion f

or [ c he m i c a l t e st i ng ] i nt e nd e d f or u se i n t r i ba l a nd

s t a t e c ourt 15 pr oc ee din gs. 16 W e nowr ev er se the Co urt of Appe al s and r em an d bo th case s ba ck to the Co urt of 17 Appe al s to c onsi de r oth er le ga l i ssu es r ai se d by

D ef en dants . 18 { 9} A s de sc ri be d a

bove , D ef

en dants c ont es te d ne ith er the S ta te P oli ce of

fi ce rs ’ 19 te sti m oni es nor

the a ff idavit of fe re d by the St at e, w hic h we re use d to e sta bli sh b oth 20 th e ex is te nc e an d th e sc op e of th e cro ss -co m m is si on ag reem en t bet ween th e Nav ajo 21 N at ionand the S ta te P oli ce . F urthe rm or e, in the ir r es pe ct ive m oti ons to d ism iss , 22 D ef en dants ne ve r ar gue d th at a w ri tte n agr ee m en t wa s re qui re d to e sta bli sh e ith er

the 23 ex ist en ce or

the sc ope of

ac ro ss- co m

m iss iona gr ee m en t.6

1 { 10} D ef

en dants ins te ad

r el ie d on Sta te v. Har ris on , 2010-NMS C-038, 148 N. M. 2 500, 238 P

. 3d 8 69. T he y c or re ct ly not ed that “ a state of

fi ce r’ s in ve sti ga tiv e au tho ri ty 3 in Indian coun try

necessarily

is lim ited by

tribal sovereignty .” Id . ¶ 20

. H arr iso n he ld 4 that “ a determ ination of w hether .

. . an exercise of state authority infringes on tribal 5 sovereignty turns on the existence of a governing tribal procedure.” Id . ¶ 23 (internal 6 quot at ionm ar

ks and c itati on om itt ed ). A cc or din gly , “ [w ] he re ava lid e xtr ad iti on 7 pr oc ed ur e ex ist s, the a rr es t of a n I ndi anon I ndi anland” by state of fi ce rs f or 8 vi ol at io ns of s ta te law i s i ll eg al

. Id

. ¶ 22. D ef en dants thu s ap pe ar to re ly on H arr iso n 9 for the propositio n that irrespective of the State Police off icers’ cross-com

m issio ned 10 status, extradition pro ce d u res m ust be followed, even when cross-com m issio ned 11 of fi ce rs r em ove N av aj os f

ro m N av aj o land t o purs ue N av aj o c ri m ina l i nve sti ga tio ns. 12 { 11} W e conclude that the Court of Appeals’ s opin ion exceeded the scope of review 13 in t h e se cas es . See Rule 12-216(A) N MRA . P reser vation o f a question for review 14 requires that “ a ruling or decision by [a] district c ourt [ be] fairly invok ed.” Id . H ere, 15 D ef e n d a n t s d i d n o t a r g u e t h a t a w r i t t e n c r o s s - c o m m i s s i o n a g r e e m e n t h a d t o be 16 en te re d in to the r ec or d to pr ope rl y es ta bli sh sai d agr ee m en t’ s scop e. D ef en dants did 17 not c ont es t e ith er

the e xis te nc e or

the sc ope of

the c ro ss- co m

m iss iona gr ee m en t. 18 In st ea d, the y

r el ie d on H

arr iso n f or the p r op os i t i onthate ve n c r os s- c om m i ss i oned 19 officer s investig ating N avaj o crim es had to f ollow extradition procedure s b ef o re 20 tr an spor

tin g N av aj os o ff

N av aj o land fo r ch em ic al te sts . Co nse que ntl y , r ev er sin g and7

1 re m an din g th e distr ic t c ourts’ or de rs f or the c ourts t o c ondu ct

a n ana ly sis int o th e 2 scope of the cross-com m issio n agreem ent is im

proper. 3 { 12} T he onl y

r em ai nin g qu es tio n is w he the r ex tr ad iti on p ro to co ls had to be 4 fo llo w ed

in the c as es a t bar. T he N av aj o N at ionCo de state s th at “ [a ] ny pe rs on 5 la wfu ll y

arres te d fo r vi ol at in g Nav ajo Nati on al cri m in al la w(s) or de ta in edby N av ajo 6 N at ion Co urt or de r sha ll not be re le as ed to an y oth er j ur isd ic tio n, inc lu di ng the 7 fe de ra l go ve rn m en t, ex ce pt pur suant to for m al ex tr ad iti on pro ce dur es a s se t f orth i n 8 17 [Nav aj o N at ionCo de ] § 19 51 et se q. ” N a v a

j o N a t i o n C o d e A n n . t i t . 7 , § 607 9 (2003). H ere, De fendants do no t disp u te that (1) the cr oss-comm issio ned officers 10 w er e inv es tig at ing vio la tio ns of N av aj o law w he n the y tr an spor te d D ef en dants of

f the 11 re se rv at ionfor ch em ic al te sts , or ( 2) a ft er the c he m ic al te sts w er e co m ple te d, 12 D e f e n d a n t s w e r e r e tu rn e dt o th e r e s e rv a t i o n a n db o o k e di n t o aN a v a j o d e te nti on 13 cen te r. Ch arl ie , N o. 32, 504, m em . op. ¶ 2; No rbe rto , N o. 32, 353, m em . op. ¶ 2. T hus, 14 D ef en dants w ere ne ve r re le as ed int o th e cu sto dy

of a nothe r j ur isd ic tio n. 15 Co nse que ntl y , e xtr ad iti on w as not im pli cate d. 16 { 13} O ur

c onc lus ionis streng th en ed by a n ana ly sis of

N av aj o e xtr ad iti on 17 procedures. The N avaj o Nation Code provides th at 18 Whene ve r the P re sid en t of the N av aj o N at ionis inf orm ed a nd 19 believes that a person has comm itted a crim e outside of I ndian Coun try 20 an d is pr esen t i n N av aj o “ In dian C ountry ” an d us ing it a s an a sy lum 21 from

prosecution b y

the state, t h e Pr es ident of the Navaj o Nation m ay 22 order any

Navaj o poli ce off

icer to apprehend such perso n an d deliver8

1 h i m o r

h e r t o p r o p e r s t a t e au t h o r i t i e s a tth e R e s e rv a t i o n b o u n d a ry. 2 Nav aj o Nation Code Ann. tit. 17, § 1951 (2000 ). He re, De fendants wer e never 3 de liv er ed

to au tho ri tie s who w er e ac tin g a s st at e of fi ce rs . A t the ti m e of

D ef en dants ’ 4 transport, both arresting State Police officer s wer e a cting pu rsuant to their roles as 5 en fo rcer s an d i nv es ti ga to rs of Na va jo l aw. Ch arl ie , N o. 32, 504, m em . o p. ¶ 2; 6 No rbe rto , N o. 32, 353, m em . op. ¶ 2. 7 { 14} T he re fo re , the re w as no nee d to fo llo w N av aj o extr ad iti on p ro ce dur es be ca use 8 D ef en dants w er e not

tr an spor te d of f the re se rv at ion fo r de liv er y int o the cu sto dy

of 9 state of fi ci al s. T he y

w er e tr an spor

te d a s part of a n inv es tig at ion of N av aj o cr im es a nd 10 w er e subs eque ntl y

boo ke d a t a

N av aj o de te nti on f

ac ili ty . D ef

en dants ’ a rg um en t t o th e 11 co nt rary is erro ne ou s as a m at te r of law. 12 { 15} In summ ary , the te stim ony that the Na

va j o N at i on e na bl e d cross-com

m issio ned 13 St at e Po lic e of

fi ce rs to tr an spor

t N av aj os o ff

the r es er va tio n f or c he m ic al te sti ng t o 14 investig ate N avaj o Code violatio ns wa s unop posed. De fendants instead argued that 15 in s pit e of

thi s te sti m ony , e xtr ad ition pr oto co ls h ad to be f oll ow ed

. T he y

e rr ed a s a 16 m atte r of

lawbe ca use no e x tr a d iti ons oc curr ed

. I n a ddi tio n, be ca use D ef en dants ’ onl y 17 ar gum en t f

or la ck of j ur isd ic tio n erro ne ousl y r el ie d onthe pur

porte d ne ed

to fo llo w 18 Navaj o extradition p rocedures, the Court of Appeals err ed in reversing the district 19 co urt de ci sio ns o n ba se s th at e xc ee de d th e sc ope o f revi ew . A s ar es ult , w e re ve rs e 20 the Co urt of

Appe al s.9

1 { 16} Howev er, D efen da nt s rais ed ot he r arg um en ts on ap pe al

. Ch arl ie , N o. 32, 504, 2 m em . op. ¶

12; No rbe rto , N o. 32, 353, m em . op. ¶ 11. W e the re fo re r em an d th es e 3 cases to the Court of Appeals to address the rem aining contentio ns in a m anner that 4 is c onsi ste nt w ithour

dis posi tio n. 5 { 17} IT IS S O ORDERE D.

6

____ ____ ____ ___ __ __ __ __ __ ________ 7 BARBAR A J. VIGIL, Ch ief Justice

8

____ ____ ____ __ __ __ __ __ ________ ___ 9 PE TRAJIMEN EZMA ES, Justice

10

____ ______ __ __ __ __ __ ____ ____ ____ _ 11 RIC HAR D C . B OSSON , Just ice

12

____ __ __ __ __ __ __ ________ ____ ____ _ 13 EDWA RD L. CH ÁV EZ , Just ice

14

___ __ __ __ __ __ ________ ____ ____ ____ 15 CHA RLE S W. DA NIEL S, Justice