STATE MANDATED FIRE BREAK. THE SNOHOMISH CASE HELD THAT SNOHOMISH COUNTY COULD NOT ZONE A WASTE DISPOSAL SITE WHICH WAS LOCATED ON INDIAN COUNTRY.
IN THE SNOHOMISH CASE THE WASHINGTON SUPREME COURT STATED:
"THE COUNTY ALSO CONTENDS THAT TO HOLD THAT THE ZONING ORDINANCE DOES NOT APPLY TO THE LANDS IN QUESTION AND TO ALLOW INDIAN SELFREGULATION WOULD DENY TO THE MEMBERS OF THE TULALIP TRIBES AND TO RESIDENTS OF ADJOINING LANDS THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS. THIS NOVEL ARGUMENT WOULD FIND A DENIAL OF EQUAL PROTECTION IN EACH OF THE MYRIAD CASES OF JUST POSED BUT DIFFERENT REGULATION BY DIFFERENT SOVEREIGNS IN OUR SYSTEM OF FEDERALISM. WE HAVE ALREADY DETERMINED THAT THIS STATE HAS NO JURISDICTION TO CONTROL EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY THE USE OF THE INDIAN LANDS IN QUESTION. WHERE THERE IS NO JURISDICTION, THERE CAN BE NO DENIAL OF EQUAL PROTECTION."
SNOHOMISH, 425 P.2D AT 27. THE IMPORTANT THING TO BE CONSIDERED IN BOTH THE RHOADES AND SNOHOMISH CASES IS THAT BOTH CALIFORNIA AND WASHINGTON ARE PUBLIC LAW 280 STATES. THEREFORE, UNLIKE OKLAHOMA, THOSE STATES HAVE ASSUMED JURISDICTION OVER INDIAN COUNTRY. EVEN IN PUBLIC LAW 280 STATES, HOWEVER, THAT JURISDICTION IS STILL LIMITED. THUS, IN OKLAHOMA, WHICH IS NOT A PUBLIC LAW 280 STATE, THERE IS EVEN LESS STATE AUTHORITY OVER ZONING, CODE ENFORCEMENT, ETC., IN INDIAN COUNTRY.
YOU SHOULD ALSO BE AWARE OF 25 U.S.C.A. 231, WHICH PROVIDES:
"THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, UNDER SUCH RULES AND REGULATIONS AS HE MAY PRESCRIBE, SHALL PERMIT THE AGENTS AND EMPLOYEES OF ANY STATE TO ENTER UPON INDIAN TRIBAL LANDS, RESERVATIONS, OR ALLOTMENTS THEREIN (1) FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING INSPECTION OF HEALTH AND EDUCATIONAL CONDITIONS AND ENFORCING SANITATION AND QUARANTINE REGULATIONS OR (2) TO ENFORCE THE PENALTIES OF STATE COMPULSORY SCHOOL ATTENDANCE LAWS AGAINST INDIAN CHILDREN, AND PARENTS, OR OTHER PERSONS IN LOCO PARENTIS EXCEPT THAT THIS SUBPARAGRAPH (2) SHALL NOT APPLY TO INDIANS OF ANY TRIBE IN WHICH A DULY CONSTITUTED GOVERNING BODY EXISTS UNTIL SUCH BODY HAS ADOPTED A RESOLUTION CONSENTING TO SUCH APPLICATION."
AS YOU CAN SEE, ALTHOUGH HEALTH REGULATIONS MAY BE ENFORCED BY THE STATE ON INDIAN LAND, THE APPROVAL OF NOT ONLY THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, BUT ALSO THE TRIBE ITSELF, IS REQUIRED.
THEREFORE, THE ANSWER TO YOUR SECOND AND THIRD QUESTIONS IS: NO, THE STATE DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO INSPECT OR REQUIRE CODE COMPLIANCE OF ANY INDIAN OWNED BUSINESS ON INDIAN COUNTRY, UNLESS SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED TO DO SO BY THE TRIBE AND THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR.
AS TO YOUR FOURTH QUESTION, A STATE FIRE MARSHAL AGENT, WITH A CROSS-DEPUTIZATION OR DEPUTY SPECIAL OFFICER COMMISSION FROM THE BUREAU OF THE INTERIOR, COULD INVESTIGATE FIRES INVOLVING INDIAN BUSINESSES IN INDIAN COUNTRY, IF THERE WAS A POSSIBILITY THAT THE FIRE COULD INVOLVE A FEDERAL CRIME. IF THERE WAS ONLY A POSSIBILITY THAT A TRIBAL CRIME HAD BEEN BROKEN, THEN THE STATE FIRE MARSHAL AGENT WOULD ALSO NEED TO BE CROSS-DEPUTIZED BY THE APPROPRIATE TRIBE. STATE CRIMINAL LAWS, (ARSON, ETC.) WOULD