Inyo County VS. Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Community By Katie Davidson
Who are the Paiutes? The Paiutes are a tribe that live in the Owen Valley area near Bishop, California. The Paiutes are a tribe that live in the Owen Valley area near Bishop, California. The Bishop Paiute Tribe is the fifth largest California Tribe with over 2,000 members. The Bishop Paiute Tribe is the fifth largest California Tribe with over 2,000 members.
When did the Casino Open? The Paiute Palace Casino was established in October of The following year the new Casino was opened.
How does the casino help? The casino has 275 slot machines and six game tables that provide economic lifeblood to the Bishop Paiute Indian Tribe. The casino has 275 slot machines and six game tables that provide economic lifeblood to the Bishop Paiute Indian Tribe. The casino supports the 1600 members of the Bishop Paiute Indian Tribe. The casino supports the 1600 members of the Bishop Paiute Indian Tribe.
What went wrong? The Inyo County law enforcement thought there was welfare fraud being committed by employees of the casino. The Inyo County law enforcement thought there was welfare fraud being committed by employees of the casino. They obtained a search warrant and broke into the employees files. They obtained a search warrant and broke into the employees files.
More Mistakes Instead of just taking the files on the three men suspected of the fraud the law enforcement officials took 81 confidential files. Instead of just taking the files on the three men suspected of the fraud the law enforcement officials took 81 confidential files. This was settled when the case was thrown out due to a lack of probable cause. This was settled when the case was thrown out due to a lack of probable cause. Then four months later Inyo County wanted more records! Then four months later Inyo County wanted more records!
The line was crossed The Paiutes did not take the request very well and filed suit in a federal district cout on Aug 4th. The Paiutes did not take the request very well and filed suit in a federal district cout on Aug 4th. They were “seeking injunctive and declaratory relief against further violations of the tribe’s sovereign immunity by Inyo County.” They were “seeking injunctive and declaratory relief against further violations of the tribe’s sovereign immunity by Inyo County.”
Public Law 280 Granted California criminal jurisdiction over offenses committed by or against Indians. Granted California criminal jurisdiction over offenses committed by or against Indians. This was what the Inyo County had as justification for its actions. This was what the Inyo County had as justification for its actions. The court agreed and ruled in favor of Inyo County The court agreed and ruled in favor of Inyo County
9th Circuit Court January, 2002:Two years later the 9th Circuit Court sided with the Paiutes. January, 2002:Two years later the 9th Circuit Court sided with the Paiutes. The court ruled that P.L. 280 did not justify the actions of Inyo law enforcement because the statute extends state jurisdiction to individual Indians but not to tribes as a whole. The court ruled that P.L. 280 did not justify the actions of Inyo law enforcement because the statute extends state jurisdiction to individual Indians but not to tribes as a whole. Inyo County violated the sovereign immunity. Inyo County violated the sovereign immunity.
The Scramble In May 2002 the Inyo County petition for a review by the full 9th Circuit, but the request was denied. In May 2002 the Inyo County petition for a review by the full 9th Circuit, but the request was denied. However, on December 2, 2002 the U.S. Supreme Court agree to review the case because of its significance to the relationship between sovereign nations and law enforcement agencies. However, on December 2, 2002 the U.S. Supreme Court agree to review the case because of its significance to the relationship between sovereign nations and law enforcement agencies.
The Final Answer On May 19, 2003 the Supreme Court reversed the 9th Circuit Courts decision and sided with Inyo County. On May 19, 2003 the Supreme Court reversed the 9th Circuit Courts decision and sided with Inyo County. Saying that “tribes, like states, are not “citizens” or “persons” under the federal civil rights statute, it does not follow from traditional tribal immunity that the tribe itself may sue to remedy the wrong of a government wrongfully exercising a warrant on its property.” Saying that “tribes, like states, are not “citizens” or “persons” under the federal civil rights statute, it does not follow from traditional tribal immunity that the tribe itself may sue to remedy the wrong of a government wrongfully exercising a warrant on its property.”
Sources ocket/ casinos.html ocket/ casinos.html ocket/ casinos.html ocket/ casinos.html ocket/action.lasso?-database+docket&- layout+lasso&- response=%2fdocket%2fdetail.srch&- recordID+33119&-search ocket/action.lasso?-database+docket&- layout+lasso&- response=%2fdocket%2fdetail.srch&- recordID+33119&-search ocket/action.lasso?-database+docket&- layout+lasso&- response=%2fdocket%2fdetail.srch&- recordID+33119&-search ocket/action.lasso?-database+docket&- layout+lasso&- response=%2fdocket%2fdetail.srch&- recordID+33119&-search 34th Annual Mule Days Celebration 34th Annual Mule Days Celebration