Police Officer Not Liable under FTCA or Self-D, Court Says

The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada held that a tribal officer who employed deadly force could not be held liable for damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act or the Indian Self-Determination Act because he was enforcing tribal law.

In Boney v. Valline, the plaintiff Gaylene Boney sued officer Walter Valline, of the Walker River Paiute Tribe seeking damages for his alleged violation of her Fourth and First amendment rights in connection with her arrest following the shooting death of her son by Valline.

Boney argued that she has a right to action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents. In Bivens, the Supreme Court held that federal officers who acted under the color of law were liable for damages caused by their violation of the plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights. To state a claim under Bivens, the plaintiff must allege that a federal actor violated a right secured by the Constitution.

In this case, the district court held that despite the fact that the tribe contracted with the Bureau of Indian Affairs to provide law enforcement under the Indian Self-Determination Act, Valline was not a federal actor for the purposes of the FTCA or the Self-Determination Act. The materials are available at Turtle Talk.

Northern Arapaho Takes State and County to Court

The Northern Arapaho Tribe in Wyoming has filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court against Fremont County and the state of Wyoming with the hope of settling an old reservation boundary dispute, according to the Casper Star-Tribune.

Although the suit challenges things such as sales tax and vehicle registration fees, it will ultimately call for defining what lands in the Riverton area are "Indian Country" and, thus, should be included within the boundaries of the tribe’s Wind River Indian Reservation.

Should the court see it the tribe’s way, all of Riverton and some unincorporated areas near the towns of Pavillion, Shoshone and Hudson are within the exterior boundaries of the reservation and, therefore, should be exempt from sales tax and vehicle registration fees.

A 1905 act opened up the area in question to non-Indians for settlement. However, the tribe contends that the act never terminated the reservation or “Indian Country” status of that land.