Case Name: STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Alan C. SNYDER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: Idaho Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Idaho
Decision Date: 1991-03-05
Citations: 119 Idaho 376
Docket Number: No. 18441
Parties: STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Alan C. SNYDER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: BAKES, C.J., and McDEVITT, J., concur.
Reporter: Idaho Reports
Volume: 119
Pages: 376–382

Head Matter:
807 P.2d 55
STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Alan C. SNYDER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 18441.
Supreme Court of Idaho, Moscow
October 1990 Term.
March 5, 1991.
Aherin & Rice, P.A., Lewiston, for defendant-appellant. Anthony C. Anegon argued.
Jim Jones, Atty. Gen., Myrna A.I. Stahman, Deputy Atty. Gen., Boise, for plaintiff-respondent. Myrna A.I. Stahman argued.

Opinion:
BOYLE, Justice.
In this criminal case involving a charge of driving under the influence, we are called upon to determine whether the State of Idaho has jurisdiction to prosecute a non-Indian for operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol within the boundary of an Indian reservation.
Appellant Alan Snyder was arrested and charged with driving under the influence within the boundaries of the Nez Perce Indian Reservation on a road that is not maintained by the county, state or a political subdivision of the State of Idaho.
Snyder, a non-Indian, argues that the State of Idaho does not have jurisdiction to prosecute him because his conduct was a crime against the general Indian populace of the reservation and as such only the federal government has jurisdiction. Secondly, Snyder cites I.C. § 67-5101, and argues that although the State has assumed jurisdiction over motor vehicles operated on roads within Indian reservations that are maintained by the State of Idaho or a political subdivision, it does not have jurisdiction over motor vehicles operated on roads that it does not maintain.
I. STATEMENT OF FACTS/COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS
The factual background of this action was stipulated by the parties. On April 16, 1989, Snyder was driving his motor vehicle in the Whitebird Housing Area which is within the Nez Perce Indian Reservation near Lapwai, Idaho. The road upon which Snyder was driving is not maintained by the State, county or a political subdivision of the State of Idaho.
Snyder was initially stopped by a law enforcement officer employed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs on a possible war rant service. Shortly thereafter, an Idaho State Police patrolman arrived at the scene and requested that Snyder perform several standard field sobriety tests. Snyder was arrested and charged for driving under the influence in violation of I.C. § 18-8004.
Snyder filed a motion to dismiss the charge on the grounds that the State of Idaho did not have jurisdiction to arrest and charge him with driving under the influence on a road within the reservation that is not maintained by the State. The magistrate court denied the motion and Snyder entered a conditional plea of guilty pursuant to I.C.R. 11(a)(2). On appeal the district court affirmed the magistrate's decision and this appeal followed.
II. THE STATE OF IDAHO HAS JURISDICTION
DUI Not a Crime Against an Indian or the Indian Populace
Snyder argues that his crime of driving under the influence on an Indian reservation is a crime against the Indian populace and as such the State of Idaho does not have jurisdiction. We disagree and hold that a non-Indian driving under the influence of alcohol on a road within the boundaries of a reservation is not a crime against an Indian or the general Indian populace, and is subject to the jurisdiction of the State of Idaho.
In United States v. McBratney, 104 U.S. 621, 26 L.Ed. 869 (1882), the United States Supreme Court held that because the federal government did not specifically reserve the authority to punish an offense committed by a non-Indian against a non-Indian in Indian Country, the state of Colorado had exclusive criminal jurisdiction. This rule, now commonly referred to as the "McBratney Rule," provides that a state has jurisdiction over a crime committed in Indian Country by a non-Indian against a non-Indian for a crime which does not affect Indians, and has been repeatedly applied and affirmed. United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313, 98 S.Ct. 1079, 55 L.Ed.2d 303 (1978); New York ex rel. Ray v. Martin, 326 U.S. 496, 66 S.Ct. 307, 90 L.Ed. 261 (1946); State v. Burrola, 137 Ariz. 181, 669 P.2d 614 (Ct.App.1983); Ryder v. State, 98 N.M. 316, 648 P.2d 774 (1982); Goforth v. State, 644 P.2d 114 (Okla.1982); Vialpando v. State, 640 P.2d 77 (Wyo.1982); United States v. Cleveland, 503 F.2d 1067 (9th Cir.1975); State v. Griswold, 101 Ariz. 577, 422 P.2d 693 (1967); State v. Roedl, 107 Utah 538, 155 P.2d 741 (1945).
In Duro v. Reina, 495 U.S. -, 110 S.Ct. 2053, 109 L.Ed.2d 693 (1990), the United States Supreme Court recently cited United States v. McBratney and noted:
For Indian country crimes involving only non-Indians, longstanding precedents of this Court hold that state courts have exclusive jurisdiction despite the terms of [18 U.S.C.] § 1152. See New York ex rel. Ray v. Martin, 326 U.S. 496, 90 L.Ed. 261, 66 S.Ct. 307 (1946); United States v. McBratney, 104 U.S. 621, 26 L.Ed 869 (1882).
Id. — U.S. at-, 110 S.Ct. at 2057, 109 L.Ed.2d at 701.
In United States v. Antelope, 430 U.S. 641, 97 S.Ct. 1395, 51 L.Ed.2d 701 (1977), the "McBratney Rule" was further explained as follows:
Not all crimes committed within Indian country are subject to federal or tribal jurisdiction, however. Under United States v. McBratney, 104 U.S. 621, 26 L.Ed. 869 (1882), a non-Indian charged with committing crimes against other non-Indians in Indian country is subject to prosecution under state law.
Id. at 430 U.S. 642 n. 2, 97 S.Ct. 1397 n. 2.
In Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191, 98 S.Ct. 1011, 55 L.Ed.2d 209 (1978), the United States Supreme Court further clarified this jurisdictional issue when it held that Indian tribes do not have inherent jurisdiction to try and to punish non-Indians for crimes committed in Indian country.
Although the United States Supreme Court has not ruled on the precise issue presented in the instant case concerning a state's jurisdiction to prosecute a non-Indian for drunken driving while on a reservation, it has been addressed by several state appellate courts. In State v. Warner, 71 N.M. 418, 379 P.2d 66 (1963), the New Mexico Supreme Court was presented with the issue of whether the state had jurisdiction to try a non-Indian for driving while under the influence within the boundaries of the Navajo Indian Reservation. After the trial court dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, the state appealed. In reversing the trial court the New Mexico Supreme Court stated, "we conclude that the New Mexico State Courts have jurisdiction over criminal offenses committed on an Indian reservation within this state, by non-Indians, which are not against an Indian nor involving Indian property." 379 P.2d at 68-69. Similar reasoning was applied by the Nevada Supreme Court in State v. Jones, 92 Nev. 116, 546 P.2d 235 (1976), which reversed the district court's dismissal of charges against a non-Indian for possession of marijuana on an Indian reservation.
In State v. Herber, 123 Ariz. 214, 598 P.2d 1033 (1979), the conviction of a non-Indian for possession of marijuana on an Indian reservation was upheld. In holding that the defendant was legally arrested by state officials while he was on the Indian reservation, the Arizona Court of Appeals stated:
Jurisdiction of Arizona to prosecute and punish non-Indians for crimes against non-Indians committed on an Indian reservation is beyond dispute. United States v. McBratney, 104 U.S. 621, 26 L.Ed. 869 (1881); State v. Griswold, 101 Ariz. 577, 422 P.2d 693 (1967); and see United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313, 324 n. 21, 98 S.Ct. 1079, 1087 n. 21, 55 L.Ed.2d 303, 313 n. 21 (1978). Conversely, Indian tribal courts lack criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians. Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191, 98 S.Ct. 1011, 55 L.Ed.2d 209 (1978). In the absence of any potential conflict of jurisdiction, we see no reason to extend the rule of Francisco [that the arrest of an Indian on an Indian reservation by state law enforcement officials was illegal] to preclude the arrest of a non-Indian by state law enforcement officers who have pursued him onto an Indian reservation.
Id. at 598 P.2d 1035.
In State v. Thomas, 233 Mont. 451, 760 P.2d 96 (1988), the Montana Supreme Court was presented with the issue of whether the state had jurisdiction to prosecute a non-Indian for failure to report a traffic accident occurring on an Indian reservation. The Montana Supreme Court stated:
The difficulty here is in classifying an offense under § 61-7-108, MCA, [failing to immediately notify authorities of an accident involving injury, death, or property damage in excess of $250] as one by a non-Indian against an Indian or an Indian's property. The State argues that the offense constitutes a victimless crime because it makes the perpetrator culpable irrespective of injury to person or property.
Id. at 760 P.2d 97.
In holding that the state had jurisdiction to prosecute a non-Indian, the Montana Supreme Court explained:
Other courts facing inquiries concerning "victimless" crimes, such as DUI or possession of marijuana, have analyzed the issue in a similar manner. See State v. Warner, (1963), 71 N.M. 418, 379 P.2d 66; State v. Herber, (App.1979), 123 Ariz. 214, 598 P.2d 1033. And one authority has explained that:
"Under the logic of United States v. McBratney and Draper v. United States, victimless crimes by non-Indians appear to be subject to state jurisdiction. Those cases held that jurisdiction over crimes by non-Indians against non-Indians in Indian country rests with the state. However, their reasoning and their holdings appear broad enough to encompass non-Indian victimless offenses as well. McBratney concluded that the state maintained jurisdiction over all white persons on the Ute reservation and Draper held that the state had not been deprived of the power to punish crimes committed on a reservation "by other than Indians or against Indians." In practice, victimless offenses by non-In dians have been treated in a number of cases as subject to state jurisdiction under McBratney and Draper, on the theory that neither Indians nor their property are affected."
M.B. West, Manual of Indian Criminal Jurisdiction 99 (1977 & Supp.1982).
Id. at 760 P.2d 98.
In State v. Thomas, the Montana Supreme Court acknowledged that federal, tribal, and state interests regarding jurisdiction for acts committed within the boundaries of an Indian reservation should be examined and considered, but held that the state's interest in traffic safety was the more compelling policy.
In determining jurisdiction for victimless crimes, we agree that federal, tribal, and state interests should be examined. Burrola, 669 P.2d at 615. We hold here that the federal and tribal interests in providing a federal forum fail to outweigh the State's strong interest in traffic safety. Our reasoning is based on the fact that the policy of providing a federal forum where criminal prosecutions pit the interests of non-Indian offenders against Indian victims is not furthered where, as here, the connection to destruction of Indian property is only tangential to the crime charged. Under these circumstances, the State's interests in highway safety control the issue.
Id. at 760 P.2d 98.
While it is not necessary that we determine whether driving under the influence is a "victimless" crime, we expressly hold that a non-Indian driving under the influence on a road within the boundaries of a reservation is not a crime against an Indian or the general Indian populace. As such, the State of Idaho has jurisdiction to prosecute Snyder.
It is settled beyond dispute that the state of Idaho has jurisdiction over certain acts, including the operation of motor vehicles, occurring on an Indian reservation. State v. McCormack, 117 Idaho 1009, 793 P.2d 682 (1990); State v. Michael, 111 Idaho 930, 729 P.2d 405 (1986). Accordingly, we hold that the State's interests in maintaining traffic safety and protecting the traveling public, Indian and non-Indian alike, controls the issue regardless of whether the motor vehicle is being operated on a road maintained by the State or a political subdivision.
Accordingly, we affirm the order denying Snyder's motion to dismiss and affirm the judgment of conviction entered pursuant to the conditional plea of guilty.
BAKES, C.J., and McDEVITT, J., concur.