Opinion ID: 658348
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Federal Officer Issue.

Text: 31 Following a hearing, the district court denied defendants' pretrial motion to dismiss on the ground that tribal officers Greenwald and Long were not federal officers performing official duties for purposes of Sec. 111. Defendants appeal that ruling. 32 Section 111 proscribes forcible action against any person designated in [18 U.S.C. Sec. ] 1114. Section 1114 lists many categories of federal officers, including any officer or employee of the ... Department of the Interior ... assigned to perform investigative, inspection, or law enforcement functions. Prior to 1976, the Department of Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) was the primary provider of law enforcement services on the Pine Ridge Reservation. That year, acting pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination Act of 1975, BIA entered into a contract under which the Oglala Sioux Tribe Public Safety Commission (OSTPSC) agreed to provide the entire gamut of law Enforcement Services on the Reservation, including the arrest of violators of Tribal Penal Code provisions, Federal and State law. See 25 U.S.C. Sec. 450f. Agreements of this type are commonly known as 638 contracts, named for the public law number of the 1975 Act. Officers Greenwald and Long are employed by OSTPSC at the Pine Ridge Reservation. They have been designated by BIA to carry out OSTPSC's responsibilities under the 638 contract. 33 In 1990, Congress passed the Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act, 25 U.S.C. Secs. 2801-2809, to clarify and strengthen the authority of the law enforcement personnel and functions within the [BIA]. S.Rep. No. 167, 101st Cong., 2d Sess. 4 (1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 712, 712. Under that Act, the Secretary of Interior may charge BIA employees with a broad range of law enforcement powers. See 25 U.S.C. Sec. 2803. In addition, the Secretary may contract with a tribe to assist BIA in enforcing tribal laws and, in connection with such a contract, may authorize a tribal law enforcement officer to perform any activity the Secretary may authorize under section 2803. 25 U.S.C. Sec. 2804(a). When acting under such authority, a person who is not otherwise a Federal employee shall be considered to be an employee of the Department of the Interior only for purposes of ... sections 111 and 1114 of Title 18. 25 U.S.C. Sec. 2804(f). 34 The government argues, and the district court held, that under 25 U.S.C. Sec. 2804(f) tribal officers Greenwald and Long were federal officers for purposes of Sec. 111 when they encountered defendants because they were engaged in law enforcement activities and were acting pursuant to a 638 contract that delegated BIA's tribal law enforcement duties to OSTPSC. We agree. When a 638 contract meets the definition of a Sec. 2804(a) agreement, and when tribal officers designated under that contract enforce laws that BIA officers would otherwise enforce, Sec. 2804(f) expressly provides that those tribal officers are afforded the same protection under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 111 that Congress has afforded BIA employees. This is so regardless of whether the officer is enforcing a tribal, state, or federal law, so long as he is engaged in the performance of his official duties rather than a personal frolic of his own. United States v. Heliczer, 373 F.2d 241, 245 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 388 U.S. 917, 87 S.Ct. 2133, 18 L.Ed.2d 1359 (1967). That is the plain meaning of Sec. 2804(f). It is also consistent with the purpose of Sec. 111 to protect both federal officers and federal functions. United States v. Feola, 420 U.S. 671, 679, 95 S.Ct. 1255, 1261, 43 L.Ed.2d 541 (1975) (emphasis in original). Therefore, the district court properly denied defendants' pretrial motion to dismiss. 35