OF 1968, THE STATE COULD HAVE ASSUMED JURISDICTION OVER ALL INDIAN COUNTRY MERELY BY LEGISLATIVE ACT. IN 1953, IT WAS SUGGESTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR THAT OKLAHOMA CONSIDER ASSUMING SUCH JURISDICTION OVER INDIAN LANDS UNDER PUBLIC LAW 280. OKLAHOMA DECLINED TO DO SO, AND SINCE THE PASSAGE OF THE INDIAN CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, PERMISSION OF THE TRIBES IS NOW A NECESSARY PREREQUISITE TO THE STATE ASSUMING CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OVER INDIAN COUNTRY. UNITED STATES V. BURNETT, 777 F.2D 593 (10TH CIR. 1985) CERT. DEN. 476 U.S. 1106,106 S.CT. 1952, 90 L.ED.2D 361 (1986). NO OKLAHOMA TRIBES HAVE GRANTED SUCH PERMISSION TO THE STATE.
INDIAN COUNTRY IS DEFINED IN 18 U.S.C.A. 1151 (1982), AS:
"(A) ALL LAND WITHIN THE LIMITS OF ANY INDIAN RESERVATION UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, NOTWITHSTANDING THE ISSUANCE OF ANY PATENT, AND, INCLUDING RIGHT-OF-WAY RUNNING THROUGH THE RESERVATION,
(B) ALL DEPENDENT INDIAN COMMUNITIES WITHIN THE BORDERS OF THE UNITED STATES WHETHER WITHIN THE ORIGINAL OR SUBSEQUENTLY ACQUIRED TERRITORY THEREOF, AND WHETHER WITHIN OR WITHOUT THE LIMITS OF A STATE, AND
(C) ALL INDIAN ALLOTMENTS, THE INDIAN TITLES TO WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN EXTINGUISHED, INCLUDING RIGHTS-OF-WAY RUNNING THROUGH THE SAME."
OVER EACH TRACT OF LAND WHICH FALLS INTO THE LEGAL CLASSIFICATION OF INDIAN COUNTRY UNDER 18 U.S.C.A. 1151 (1982) THREE SEPARATE SOVEREIGNS SHARE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OVER THE AREA. THOSE SOVEREIGNS ARE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, AND THE TRIBE.
IT MUST BE EMPHASIZED THAT STATE COURTS RETAIN JURISDICTION, IN INDIAN COUNTRY, OVER CRIMES COMMITTED BY A NON-INDIAN AGAINST THE PERSON OR PROPERTY OF A NON-INDIAN. WILLIAMS V. UNITED STATES, 327 U.S. 711 (1946); DRAPER V. UNITED STATES,164 U.S. 240 (1896); UNITED STATES V. MCCRATNEY,104 U.S. 621 (1882). THEREFORE, INDIAN COUNTRY SHOULD NOT BE TREATED BY STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AS A NO-MAN'S LAND, OVER WHICH THEY HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO AUTHORITY.
ABSENT AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE THREE SOVEREIGNS, A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OF ONE SOVEREIGN MAY NOT ENFORCE THE LAW OF ONE OF THE OTHER TWO SOVEREIGNS IN INDIAN COUNTRY. THIS ISSUE RESURFACED RECENTLY IN THE CASE OF ROSS V. NEFF, 905 F.2D 1349 (10TH CIR. 1990). ROSS HELD THAT THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ACTING THROUGH THE ADAIR COUNTY SHERIFF, HAD ABSOLUTELY NO JURISDICTION TO ARREST A CHEROKEE MAN FOR WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN A STATE OFFENSE HAD IT NOT OCCURRED ON CHEROKEE TRUST LAND. HAD THE ADAIR COUNTY SHERIFF BEEN OPERATING UNDER A FEDERAL OR CHEROKEE CROSS-DEPUTIZATION AGREEMENT, HE COULD HAVE LEGALLY MADE THE ARREST, AND THEN TURNED THE DEFENDANT OVER TO THE APPROPRIATE SOVEREIGN FOR PROSECUTION.
THE STATE'S POWER OVER INDIAN ACTIVITIES IN INDIAN COUNTRY IS LIMITED, BUT IT STILL EXISTS. FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE RECENT U.S. SUPREME COURT CASE OF CITIZEN BAND OF POTAWATOMI V. OKLAHOMA TAX COMMISSION, 498 U.S,., 112 L.ED.2D 1112, 111 S.CT. (FEB. 26, 1991) THE SUPREME COURT REEMPHASIZED THE NOTION OF TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY, BUT HELD THAT THE STATE COULD LEGALLY TAX THE SALE OF CIGARETTES TO NON-INDIANS FROM A SMOKESHOP THAT WAS SITUATED IN INDIAN COUNTRY.