Opinion ID: 1793077
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Cabazon Test as Applied in State v. Stone

Text: In State v. Stone , we articulated what we believe to be the parameters of Public Law 280's grant of subject-matter jurisdiction as defined by the Cabazon test. See 572 N.W.2d at 730-31. In so doing, we set forth a two-step approach for determining when Minnesota has subject-matter jurisdiction to enforce its laws when violations of those laws are committed by enrolled tribal members on the tribal reservation. See id. Under the Stone approach, the first step is to determine the proper focus of the Cabazon test and the second step is to apply the Cabazon test to the conduct at issue. See id. When using the Stone approach, courts first must determine the proper focus of the Cabazon test; that is, whether the Cabazon test should be applied to the broad conduct that encompasses the specific statutory provision being challenged, in this case driving and traffic laws as a whole, or to the narrow conduct described in the specific statutory provision itself, in this case driving after revocation. See Stone, 572 N.W.2d at 730. We stated that [t]he broad conduct will be the focus of the test unless the narrow conduct presents substantially different or heightened public policy concerns. Id. If the narrow conduct does present substantially different or heightened public policy concerns, then courts must analyze the narrow conduct apart from the broad conduct. See id. Once the proper focus of the Cabazon test is determined, courts must next apply the second step of the Stone approach by applying the Cabazon test to the conduct in question in order to determine whether the conduct at issue is civil/regulatory or criminal/prohibitory. Stone, 572 N.W.2d at 730. If the conduct is generally permitted, subject to exceptions, then the [state] law controlling the conduct is civil/regulatory and the state does not have subject-matter jurisdiction to enforce the provision when violations are committed by enrolled tribal members on the tribal reservation. Id. If the conduct is generally prohibited, then the [state law controlling] the conduct is criminal/prohibitory and the state does have subject-matter jurisdiction to enforce the provision. Id. In close cases where it is difficult to determine whether the conduct at issue is generally permitted or generally prohibited, courts should apply the Cabazon shorthand public policy test. Cabazon, 480 U.S. at 209, 107 S.Ct. 1083; Stone, 572 N.W.2d at 730. The Cabazon shorthand test provides that if the conduct at issue violates the state's public policy, then the state does have jurisdiction to enforce the state law controlling the conduct. Because the enforcement of virtually any law implicates some public policy, the public policy concerns that must be implicated when applying the Cabazon shorthand test are public criminal policy concerns, i.e., policy concerns that seek to protect society from serious breaches in the social fabric which threaten grave harm to persons or property. Stone, 572 N.W.2d. at 730. In Stone, we identified four factors as useful when determining whether the conduct at issue violates the state's public criminal policy: (1) the extent to which the [conduct] directly threatens physical harm to persons or property or invades the rights of others; (2) the extent to which the law allows for exceptions and exemptions; (3) the blameworthiness of the actor; (4) the nature and severity of the potential penalties for a violation of the law. Id. In identifying these factors, we noted that no single factor is dispositive of the issue of whether conduct violates the state's public criminal policy and that the four factors listed are not the only factors courts may find useful in making that determination. See id. It is in the context of this two-step Stone approach that we must analyze any violation of Minn.Stat. § 171.24, subd. 2, driving after revocation of driver's license, when that offense is committed by an enrolled tribal member on a tribal reservation.