Court Opinion

ID: 9584155
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:45:04.798881+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:50.624700
License: Public Domain

TOMLJANOVICH, Justice
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. Common sense dictates that the state may enforce its traffic and driving-related laws against mtembers of the Indian tribe in this case where the reservation land in question is a highly traveled highway within the boundaries of the reservation.
I believe the state’s interest in enforcing its traffic laws in this case rises to the level of an exceptional circumstance because of public safety. The term “on the reservation” calls to mind a pastoral scene isolated from the general commerce of the state where Native American persons can go about their daily lives free from interference by the state. This is not such an area; this is a highly traveled highway.
Public safety demands that all who travel public highways subject themselves to the laws of the State of Minnesota. Under the laws enunciated in this case, the state may not enforce laws prohibiting driving the wrong way on a one way roadway; passing on the right; those laws requiring us to yield to emergency vehicles; even those requiring us to stop and yield the right-of-way at a stop sign. Even basic equipment requirements, such as brakes and lights, may not be enforced by the state. I know that tribal members are not a lawless lot intent on violating basic safety rules. I also know, based on experience in the rest of the state, that there will be the occasional person who drives without lights or brakes and imperils the safety of all the other persons on the highway, so the power to enforce traffic laws is essential.
*733I do not believe any strong tribal interest would be served by the lack of enforcement of highway safety laws by the state. I would hold that the state may enforce its traffic and driving-related laws against members of the Indian tribe within the boundaries of the reservation.