BIA law enforcement officers are commissioned under the authority established in 25 U.S.C. 2803. BIA may issue law enforcement commissions to other Federal, State, local and tribal full-time certified law enforcement officers to obtain active assistance in enforcing applicable Federal criminal statutes, including Federal hunting and fishing regulations, in Indian country.
(a) BIA will issue commissions to other Federal, State, local and tribal full-time certified law enforcement officers only after the head of the local government or Federal agency completes an agreement with the Commissioner of Indian Affairs asking that BIA issue delegated commissions. The agreement must include language that allows the BIA to evaluate the effectiveness of these special law enforcement commissions and to investigate any allegations of misuse of authority.
(b) Tribal law enforcement officers operating under a BIA contract or compact are not automatically commissioned as Federal officers; however, they may be commissioned on a case-by-case basis.
Notes of Decisions
Bishop Paiute Tribe v. Inyo Cnty., 863 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2017).
“, and its accompanying federal regulations, 25 C.F.R. §§ 12.21 et seq., have displaced the federal common law upon which the FAC relies.”
United States v. Cooley, 593 U.S. 345 (2021).
“§§2803 (5), (7) (Secretary of the Interior may authorize tribal officers to “make inquiries of any per- son” related to the “carrying out in Indian country” of fed- eral law and to “perform any other law enforcement related duty”); §2805 (Secretary of the Interior may promulgate…”
Boney v. Valline, 597 F. Supp. 2d 1167 (D. Nev. 2009).
· cites it 3× “25 C.F.R. § 12.21 (b) states that “[t]ribal law enforcement officers operating under a BIA contract or compact are not automatically commissioned as Federal officers; however, they may be commissioned on a case-by-case basis.”
Trujillo v. United States, 313 F. Supp. 2d 1146 (D.N.M. 2003).
“B, Attachment 1; see also 25 C.F.R. § 12.21 (b). The Isleta Pueblo’s Chief of Law Enforcement stated in his affidavit that Romero, Chavez and Day “were- enforcing provisions of the Pueblo of Isleta Law and Order Code and not Federal law.”
Hopland Band of Pomo Indians v. Norton, 324 F. Supp. 2d 1067 (N.D. Cal. 2004).
“Once the contract for law enforcement services is in place, if ever, the individual officers at issue can be assessed by the BIA on a case-by-case basis under the BIA’s regulations (25 C.F.R. 12.21) to determine whether they qualify for SLECs.”
Holthusen v. United States, 498 F. Supp. 2d 1236 (D. Minnesota 2007).
“§§ 450f, 450h, 2802-2804; 25 C.F.R. 12.21(b); see also Red Elk v. United States, 62 F.”
United States v. Cleveland, 356 F. Supp. 3d 1215 (D.N.M. 2018).
· cites it 21× “Cleveland cites 25 C.F.R. § 12.21 (b) to argue that "[t]ribal law enforcement officers operating under a BIA contract or compact are not automatically commissioned as Federal officers," although, according to Cleveland, "they may be commissioned on a case-by-case basis.”
(PC) Simmons v. Cates (E.D. Cal. 2023).
“…L. Thurston who are Federal Employees Subject to FTCA USCS §§ 1346(b), 2680(h)m 25 USCS 26 §§ 450f, 450h, 2802-2804, 25 CFR 12.21(b); Seeking Statutory Damages in a Sum Certain $ 10,000; Are 27 Mandatory Through Operation of Law 42 USCS§1986. May is the Operating Work in the…”
Azure v. United States of Am. (D. Mont. 2022).
“25 C.F.R. § 12.21 (b). A court must determine the “commissioned” designation on a “case-by-case basis.”
Margaret A. Penn v. Frank Landis (8th Cir. 2003).
“§ 2802 (c)(1); 25 C.F.R. §§ 12.21 - 12.22. Captain Vettleson consulted with BIA Standing Rock Superintendent Larry -4- Bodin and BIA District Commander Richard Armstrong regarding the legality of the order.”
Margaret A. Penn v. Frank Landis (8th Cir. 2003).
“§ 2802 (c)(1); 25 C.F.R. §§ 12.21 - 12.22. Captain Vettleson consulted with BIA Standing Rock Superintendent Larry -4- Bodin and BIA District Commander Richard Armstrong regarding the legality of the order.”
— 25 C.F.R. § 12.21(b) — 2 cases
Holthusen v. United States, 498 F. Supp. 2d 1236 (D. Minnesota 2007).
“§§ 450f, 450h, 2802-2804; 25 C.F.R. 12.21(b); see also Red Elk v. United States, 62 F.”
(PC) Simmons v. Cates (E.D. Cal. 2023).
“…L. Thurston who are Federal Employees Subject to FTCA USCS §§ 1346(b), 2680(h)m 25 USCS 26 §§ 450f, 450h, 2802-2804, 25 CFR 12.21(b); Seeking Statutory Damages in a Sum Certain $ 10,000; Are 27 Mandatory Through Operation of Law 42 USCS§1986. May is the Operating Work in the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.