RCW 10.93.

001 THE WASHINGTON MUTUAL AND PEACE OFFICERS POWERS ACT DOES NOT GIVE AUTHORITY TO CITY POLICE OFFICERS, COUNTY SHERIFFS OR WASHINGTON STATE PATROL TO GIVE ANYONE TRAFFIC TICKETS WITHIN THE CONFINES OF A FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED INDIAN RESERVATION WHICH IS A SEPARATE & SOVEREIGN JURISDICTION!!!!
18 U.S.C. 1154 & 18 U.S.C. 1161 provide that the Indian Reservation of a Federal Recognized Indian Tribe is INDIAN COUNTRY & a separate SOVEREIGN JURISDICTION. Neither the State of Washington or the County has ever applied for or obtained permission from the Secretary of the Interior to establish a public highway under Washington law on the Indian Reservation as required by 25 CFR 161.1 and 25 U.S.C. 311. Consequently, none of the roads on the Indian Reservation are state public highways, and the State of Washington has no jurisdiction over the operation of motor vehicles by Indians or non-Indians on the Reservation. Instead, jurisdiction over the roads on the Indian Reservation remains in the Indian Tribe which like any private landowner, has the right to exclude non-Indians from their use or from the Reservation altogether. An Indian & Non-Indian employee on the Reservation possess the common immunity from suit in State or Federal Court traditionally enjoyed by sovereign powers. Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 56 L.Ed.2d 106, 98 S.Ct. 1670 (1978); Hardin v. White Mountain Apache Tribes, 779 F.2d 476 (9th Cir. 1985); Bruette v.Knope, 554 F.Supp. 301 (E.D. Wis. 1983). Absent express waiver, no Washington Court may exercise jurisdiction over any Indian or Non-Indian on the Reservation absent express waiver by the tribe. North Sea Products v. Clipper Seafoods, 92 Wn.2d 236, 238, 595 P.2d 938 (1979); Evans v. McKay, 869 F.2d 1341 (9th Cir. 1989); United States v. State of Oregon, 657 F.2d 1009 (9th Cir. 1981); Panamerican Companies v. Sycuan Band of Mission Indians, 884 F.2d 416 (9th Cir. 1989). RCW 10.93 et seq., allows an individual peace officerto enforce criminal traffic laws outside the officers jurisdiction, i.e., from City to City or County to County, upon the express and specific prior written consent of the local county sheriff or chief of police of the neighboring City or County, throughout the territorial bounds of this state. That law is intended to allow for statewide

jurisdiction of peace officers only in very limited and specific circumstances, so that one jurisdiction in

this state is not unduly restricted when calling upon a neighboring agency for assistance. Senate Bill Report SB 3273. See State v. Rasmussen, 70 Wn.App. 853 (Div. I, (1993); Ghaffari v. Department of Licensing, 62 Wn.App. 870 (Div. I, 1991); State v. Bartholomew, 56 Wn.App. 617 (1990). RCW 10.93.070 (1)(3) provides that:
. . . a general authority Washington peace officer who possesses a certificate of basic law enforcement training or a certificate of equivalency or has been exempted from the requirement therefor by the Washington state criminal justice training commission may enforce the traffic or criminal laws of this state throughout the territorial bounds of this state, under the following enumerated circumstances: (1) Upon the prior written consent of the sheriff or chief of police in whose primary territorial jurisdiction the exercise of the powers occurs; . . . (3) In response to a request for assistance pursuant to a mutual law enforcement assistance agreement with the agency of primary territorial jurisdiction or in response to the request of a peace officer with enforcement authority; . . .

RCW 10.93.070 (1) says that any State officer on Indian Land must have the prior written consent of the Chief of the Tribal Police or must be responding to a request for assistance pursuant to a mutual law enforcement assistance agreement with the Indian Tribe or Tribal Police, or be in response to the request of a Tribal peace officer with enforcement authority pursuant to RCW 10.93.070 (3); RCW 10.93.028 (a)(8). State v. Plaggemeir, 93 Wn.App. 472 (Jan. 8, 1999) and RCW 10.93.130 provide that law enforcement agencies must comply with the terms of RCW 39.34. See also RCW 10.93.130 which reads:

RCW 10.93.130 Contracting authority of law enforcement agencies. Under the interlocal cooperation act, chapter 39.34 RCW, any law enforcement agency referred to by this chapter may contract with any other such agency and may also contract with any law enforcement agency of another state, or such state's political subdivision, to provide mutual law enforcement assistance. The agency with primary territorial jurisdiction may require that officers from participating agencies meet reasonable training or certification standards or other reasonable standards. [1985 c 89 13.].

It is clear that a valid Mutual Aid Agreement requires that said agreement be first ratified by the legislative body or bodies governing the locality signatory to the Mutual Aid Agreement pursuant to RCW 39.34.030 (2). Furthermore, RCW 39.34.040 provides that the Mutual Aid Agreement must be filed with the County Auditor and the Secretary of State before it may enter into force. None of these provisions are required by RCW 10.93. All are required by RCW 39.34. See RCW 39.34.030 & RCW 34.34.040. FOR HELP: call Tribal Court Lawyer / Of Counsel Luis Ewing at (253) 226-3741 or (360) 353-

4846 or <rcwcodebuster@gmail.com> Please send CASH ONLY DONATIONS to: Luis Ewing, c/o General Delivery, (City of) Copalis Crossing, The State of Washington [98536].