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.