Federal Judge Dismisses Most Claims Against Law Enforcement Officers in Lawsuit Over Cannabis Raid on Tribal Land  

A federal judge last week tossed most of the claims against two California
sheriffs and the California Highway Patrol (CHP) in a lawsuit claiming
deputies illegally raided tribal land, Courthouse News reports. U.S.
Magistrate Judge Robert M. Illman dismissed plaintiffs’ claims that the
searches interfered with trivial sovereignty or were unlawful
under a federal statute that allows the state limited
criminal jurisdiction over tribal land.

“When the state has jurisdiction to enforce a criminal law on a
reservation, inherent tribal sovereignty does not prevent state law
enforcement from investigating and prosecuting those laws.” — Illman in the
order via Courthouse News

The judge will allow the plaintiffs to challenge that their civil rights
claims were violated, writing in the order that the Round Valley Indian
Tribe qualifies as a “person” and, therefore, can bring equal protection
claims against the defendants. Illman further ruled that there was enough
evidence to support negligence and constitutional claims against Mendocino
County Sheriff Matthew Kendall, who the plaintiffs allege publicly
endorsed, directed, and coordinated the raids, pledged in social media
posts to continue similar actions, and whose negligence contributed to the
destruction of plaintiffs’ property and violation of their constitutional
rights.

Illman dismissed CHP Commissioner Sean Duryee as a defendant but did write
that the presence of CHP vehicles during the raid was “enough to challenge”
the agency’s involvement.

In an interview with Courthouse News, Lester Marston of Rapport & Marston,
an attorney for the plaintiffs, said that Illman’s order “just got it
wrong,” calling the decision “convoluted” and “contradictory” and noting it
“doesn’t make sense.”

“The Supreme Court said the shorthanded test is: Is the law that they’re
seeking to enforce against the state’s public policy?” Marston said in the
interview with Courthouse News. “Is it against the state’s public policy to
cultivate, possess and sell cannabis? No, it’s not.”

Marston said he is planning to appeal the decision.