** PART I **
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS RECEIVED YOUR REQUEST FOR AN OPINION, WHICH ADDRESSES, IN EFFECT, THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:
1. DOES A MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT HAVE ANY RESPONSIBILITY TO RESPOND TO AND EXTINGUISH A FIRE AT ANY INDIAN OWNED AND OPERATED BUSINESSES LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF A MUNICIPALITY?
2. DOES THE STATE FIRE MARSHAL HAVE ANY LEGAL AUTHORITY TO INSPECT ANY INDIAN OWNED BUSINESS WITHIN THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, OPEN TO THE PUBLIC?
3. DOES THE STATE FIRE MARSHAL HAVE ANY AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE THAT ALL INDIAN OWNED BUSINESSES, SUCH AS A DAY CARE FACILITY, BE BUILT ACCORDING TO STATE ADOPTED BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS?
4. DOES A STATE FIRE MARSHAL AGENT, COMMISSIONED AS A DEPUTY SPECIAL OFFICER BY THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, HAVE ANY AUTHORITY TO INVESTIGATE FIRES INVOLVING INDIAN OWNED BUSINESSES, WITHIN A MUNICIPALITY OR ON INDIAN LAND AND ENFORCE STATE ADOPTED CODES ON INDIAN OWNED BUSINESSES WITH A MUNICIPALITY OR ON INDIAN OWNED LAND?
ATTORNEY GENERAL HENRY HAS DIRECTED ME TO RESPOND TO YOUR RECENT LETTER POSING THESE QUESTIONS. ALTHOUGH WE CANNOT ISSUE AN OFFICIAL ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINION ON THIS MATTER, I BELIEVE I CAN ASSIST YOU IN IDENTIFYING THE CONTROLLING LEGAL PRINCIPLES. THE VIEWS EXPRESSED IN THIS LETTER ARE, OF COURSE, THOSE OF THE UNDERSIGNED AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS REFLECTING THE OFFICIAL OPINION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.
YOUR FIRST THREE QUESTIONS, AS THEY ARE WORDED NOW, CAN BE ADDRESSED JOINTLY. THE MERE FACT THAT A BUSINESS WITHIN A MUNICIPALITY MAY BE INDIAN OWNED OR OPERATED DOES NOT REMOVE IT FROM THE JURISDICTION OF THAT MUNICIPALITY OR THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA. THEREFOR, THE ANSWER TO ALL THREE OF YOUR FIRST THREE QUESTIONS IS, YES. IN FACT, TO DIFFERENTIATE WHETHER OR NOT SOMEONE RECEIVES FIRE PROTECTION TO WHICH THEY WOULD OTHERWISE BE ENTITLED, BASED UPON THEIR RACE, WOULD OF COURSE, BE IMPROPER AND ILLEGAL. THESE ANSWERS ASSUME, OF COURSE, THAT THE INDIAN CONTROLLED BUSINESSES ARE NOT IN INDIAN COUNTRY. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE MAJORITY OF INDIANS AND INDIAN CONTROLLED BUSINESSES ARE NOT IN INDIAN COUNTRY, AND SHOULD BE TREATED NO DIFFERENTLY THAN OTHER CITIZENS OR BUSINESSES.
ALTHOUGH YOU DID ACT SO SPECIFY, I WILL ADDRESS YOUR FIRST THREE QUESTIONS AS THEY APPLY TO INDIAN COUNTRY. AS STATED ABOVE, INDIAN OWNED OR OPERATED BUSINESSES OR RESIDENCES THAT ARE NOT ON INDIAN COUNTRY SHOULD BE TREATED ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENTLY THAN NONINDIAN OWNED OR OPERATED BUSINESSES OR RESIDENCES. (INDIAN COUNTRY)
I BELIEVE THAT THE IMPETUS FOR YOUR QUESTIONS STEMS FROM OUR RECENT ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION NO. 90-032, AND I AM ENCLOSING A COPY OF THAT OPINION FOR YOUR INFORMATION. THE QUESTIONS POSED IN THAT OPINION ONLY DEAL WITH PROBLEMS THAT OCCUR IN INDIAN COUNTRY. INDIAN COUNTRY IS A FEDERAL CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN LANDS STILL OWNED OR CONTROLLED BY INDIVIDUAL INDIANS OR BY INDIAN TRIBES. THUS, YOUR FIRST THREE QUESTIONS WILL ALSO BE RESPONDED TO, AS THEY APPLY TO INDIAN COUNTRY.
PRIOR TO THE INDIAN CIVIL RIGHTS ACT