Tulalip Tribes: The Tulalip Tribes, located along the Pacific coast approximately
30 miles north of Seattle, became subject to state jurisdiction under PL 280 in the late
1950s. In 1957, Washington passed a statute opting into PL 280, but only for tribes that
petitioned for state jurisdiction.143 Shortly thereafter, Tulalip submitted such a petition,
indicating its consent.144 Then, in 1963, Washington enacted a second law, opting for
state jurisdiction over eight named subject areas regardless of tribal consent, and opting
for jurisdiction over all fee lands and non-Indians regardless of tribal consent.145 This
statute made no difference for Tulalip, as it had already consented to full state jurisdiction
under PL 280.
The system of state jurisdiction was not particularly effective at Tulalip.
Interrelated social problems of drug abuse and crime, often associated with poverty and
the absence of control over community and justice institutions, made Tulalip “ ‘a very
unsafe place.’ ”146 In the early 1990s, these problems were especially acute. Although
the Tribe was experiencing greater economic prosperity due to gaming and commercial
development, “State and county authorities essentially had stopped policing the
reservation, allowing much drug-abuse related crime and violence to go unchecked.”147
According to an assessment prepared by a site visit team for the Harvard University’s
Honoring Nations, “[W]hen Tulalip citizens were caught up in the non-tribal justice
system, they neither trusted it to treat them fairly nor felt as if anyone in that system cared
about their rehabilitation…
.” As a consequence, community members were reluctant to
report crimes to the county authorities or to cooperate with investigations. Although
tribes have concurrent jurisdiction under PL 280, Tulalip, like most PL 280 tribes, had
never developed the governance infrastructure and programming that could support an
effective tribal response to drug abuse, associated violence, and crime. The Nation had a
435
142 53 FR 5837 (1988).
143 Ch. 240, Laws of 1957, p. 941, Wash. Rev. Code, ch. 37.12 (1976); see State v. Paul, 53 Wn.2d 789, 792
337 P.2d 33, 36 (1959).
144 State v. Paul, 53 Wn.2d 789, 792 337 P.2d 33, 36 (1959) (upholding state’s assumption of PL 280
jurisdiction).
145 Wash. Rev. Code § 37.12.010.
146 2006 Site Visit Report,
Honoring Nations, Tulalip Tribes Alternative Sentencing Program (statement by
a long-time Tulalip resident). The Site Visit team included Professors Duane Champagne and Carole
Goldberg, as well as Dr. Miriam Jorgensen of the Harvard Project on American Indian Economic
Development.
147 Id.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
small, limited-operations court since the mid-1970s, formed to address tribal fishing
regulations violations, evictions, and collections issues.148
The Tribe determined that retrocession was a necessary first step to raise
community confidence in the justice system and to reclaim its tribal members lost to
drugs and alcohol.149 At first, the Washington legislature rejected the Tribe’s requests,
forcing the Tribe to resubmit petitions for several years.150 During that period, the Tribe
cultivated good relations with the local Snohomish County government.151 Retrocession
finally occurred in 2000,152 at a time when the Tribe’s financial and political strength
were considerable. Department of the Interior funding for the Tribe’s new
responsibilities was not at issue, because the Tribe was able to assume the burden of
additional law enforcement and criminal justice responsibilities.
In anticipation of the retrocession, the Tulalip Tribes tripled its tribal police force
to nine officers (all Native American), an enterprise funded solely by the Tribe, mostly
from its 9-year-old casino, but also from its commercial/retail development, Quilceda
Village.153 It also hired a top-quality Indian police chief with extensive experience in
Indian country and beyond.154 In addition, the Tribe and Snohomish County entered into
a cross-commission agreement that empowered approved county and tribal officers to
“exercise on the reservation all powers of a Tulalip Police Officer or Deputy Sheriff as
provided by applicable law.”155 Initially, however, the agreement was an unrealized
opportunity because “[n]one of the officers had been through the state police academy,
436
148 Id.
149 The state retained concurrent jurisdiction over the eight subject areas identified in its 1963 statute; so
while comprehensive, the grant of retrocession may not have been complete. See note 145, supra.
150 Michael Ko, "New Tulalip Police Get Greater Power: Nine-Member Force to Take Criminal Cases
Sheriff Used to Handle," Seattle Times, Nov. 15, 2001, p.B1.
151 Testimony of Donald C. Hatch Before The United States Senate Committee On Indian Affairs Oversight
Hearing On Tribal Sovereign Immunity, Federal Document Clearing House Congressional Testimony
(Sept. 24, 1996).
152 65 FR 75,948 (2000) (corrected at 65 FR 77,905 (2000)).
153 Jennifer Sullivan, “Moving Up in the Ranks: The Tulalip Police Department Is Moving Forward in Its
2-Year Effort to Become a Credible Force,” Seattle Times, March 3, 2004, p.H20; Ko, supra note 150; Janet
Burkitt, “Tulalips Fighting Graveyard Stigma: Slaying Victims’ Bodies Turn Up on Reservation,” Seattle
Times, May 19, 2001, p.B1.
154 2006 Site Visit Report, Honoring Nations, Tulalip Tribes Alternative Sentencing Program.
155 See Tulalip & Snohomish County Cooperative Law Enforcement Agreement ¶ 5, available at http://
www.ncai.org/main/pages/issues/governance/agreements/documents/Tulalip-Snohomish%20County%
20Law%20Enforcement%20Agreement.pdf (last visited May 4, 2005). Retrocession allowed the Tulalip
Tribes to negotiate this agreement from a position of strength, as it granted the nation great authority over
activity on tribal lands.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
and the department relied heavily on the Snohomish County Sheriff’s Office for backup
and guidance.”156
By 2004, the Tribe’s circumstances had changed considerably.
[T]he patrol staff ha[d] grown to 15. The agency now ha[d]
four fish-and-wildlife officers, whose jurisdiction ranges
far beyond the reservation, a fleet of new squad cars, three
recently purchased boats and the beginning of a volunteer
police corps. Many tribal members ha[d] come to
recognize the department as the community’s watchdog.157
In addition, J. A. Goss, head of the Tulalip Police Department, began sending his officers
to the state’s Criminal Justice Training Commission, which provided them with the same
training given most state police and made them eligible for a County law enforcement
commission under the parties’ 2001 agreement.158 The cross-commission gave the tribal
officers authority to arrest non-Indians, an authority that otherwise rested exclusively
with the state.
With retrocession also came the possibility for the Tribe to introduce its own
courts and philosophies of justice. With help from the Northwest Intertribal Court
System, Tulalip “upgraded its court facility, and … hired and contracted for prosecutors,
a second judge, clerks, probation and compliance officers, and other necessary court
personnel
. Additionally, it developed a relationship with the University of Washington
clinical law program to provide counsel for needy defendants.”159
Although the early versions of the Tulalip Police Department and Tulalip Court
appeared quite Western in both structure and operation, the Tribe realized that it did not
want to replicate the state and county systems. Thus, the chief of police and criminal
court judge quickly moved to create “a system that Tulalip citizens could trust, that was
viewed as interested in recovering people and not ‘throwing them away,’ and that
generated results.”160 After convening all the relevant stakeholders and tribal personnel
in the community, they devised an alternative sentencing system using GPS technology
and mandatory treatment, established a “healing to wellness” court, and initiated the
development of an intertribal detention facility (to be leased from the county) that would
437
156 Sullivan, supra note 153.
157 Id.
158 Id.
159 2006 Site Visit Report, Honoring Nations, Tulalip Tribes Alternative Sentencing Program.
160 Id.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
focus on rehabilitation.161 The new system made extensive use of tribal elders and tribal
teachings.
Harvard University’s Honoring Nations program has provided some indicators of
the effectiveness of Tulalip’s post-retrocession law enforcement and criminal justice
systems:
· The police chief claimed that crime is declining and that today, the Tulalip
Reservation is “the safest place in Washington State.” While we did not
see geographical statistics on crime, this sentiment was echoed by other
parties. At a completely different time and without knowing what the
chief would tell us, a tribal attorney noted that Tulalip used to be a very
unsafe place “but now it’s not.”
· More specifically, tribal and county officials who are in a position to know
claimed that TASP (Tribal Alternative Sentencing Program) has greater
traction against recidivism than typical programming. Reportedly,
20-25% of the participants in TASP do not re-offend, as compared to only
7-9% in Snohomish County’s defendant population.
· The tribe presented estimates of jail-cost savings of approximately
$120,000 over the last four quarters; these estimates are based on the
number of days defendants would have been in jail had they not been on
GPS ankle bracelets as TASP participants.162
· Participants in TASP provided testimony that it is working for them. The
chief of police and criminal court judge both reported hearing from
parents who said, “TASP gave me my child back.” The chief even said he
had parents giving tips about their children’s offenses, with the intention
of getting them into TASP, since it has established a reputation for caring
rehabilitation. We were particularly struck by the experience of a young
female client who is pregnant and wanted to stay in the same home as her
child’s father. The requirements of the program are that she must live in a
clean and sober home, and not surprisingly, she and her boyfriend used
together. The two petitioned the program for the boyfriend to also be
subject to TASP-administered random drug testing, which the court
agreed to, with the proviso that the defendant go to jail if the boyfriend’s
test was ever positive.
This sort of flexibility would have been impossible
in the county system. Thus, through TASP, both are staying clean and
438
161 Id.
162 This is not a net jail cost savings, but rather, evidence of a more cost-effective way to serve a larger
custody population.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
sober, learning how to stay organized, taking better care of themselves,
and building a more positive family life.163
The consensus at Tulalip seems to be that retrocession was a major step forward for
sovereignty, tribal culture, and public safety.
