ATTACHMENT 1 SPECIAL OFFICER PROFILE, PHOENIX AREA, JANUARY 1975 A recent survey of the Special Officers assigned to the Phoenix Area (Arizona, Nevada and Utah) indicates the following: Thirty-nine years of age; male of Indian descent; GS-11; nearly 15 years of law enforcement experience, a substantial part of which has been in the area of criminal investigation; high school graduate with about 2 years of college; a graduate of the FBI National Academy or the Consolidated Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, coupled with considerable in-service training and specialized training in non-Federal facilities. It can be assumed that this Phoenix Area Special Officer Profile would be approximately the same for all BIA Special Officers. Reservations Aberdeen area: Omaha, Nebr Fort Berthold, N. Dak. ATTACHMENT 2 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF LOCALE, JANUARY 1975 Crow Creek and Lower Brule, S. Dak Pine Ridge, S. Dak.. Rosebud, S. Dak__ Lake Traverse, S. Dak Albuquerque area: Southern Ute, Colo__ Jicarilla, N. Mex. North Pueblos, N. Mex. (8 reservation Espanola, N. Mex. (from 15 to 20)_. Mescalero, N. Mex. areas). Ramah, N. Mex FBI agent location (miles from reservation) Sioux City, Iowa (36). Durango, Colo. (93). South Pueblos, N. Mex. (10 reservation Albuquerque, N. Mex. (from 13 to 70). Albuquerque, N. Mex. (from 13 to areas). On reservation__. Pearl River, Miss. (350)... Pearl River, Miss. (from 0 to 90)__ Minneapolis, Minn. (300). L'Anse, Mich, (240). do.. Fort Defiance, Ariz.. do.. Kayenta, Ariz. do.. Tuba City, Ariz. do. Window Rock, Ariz.. _do.. 70). Gallup, N. Mex. (40) Great Falls, Mont. (126). New Orleans, La. (70). Meridian, Miss. (from 38 to 70). Flagstaff, Ariz. (100). Des Moines, Iowa (75). Sioux St. Marie, Mich. (159). ATTACHMENT 2 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF LOCALE, JANUARY 1975 BIA investigator location (miles from reservation) FBI agent location (miles from reservation) Reservations Colorado River, Ariz. (80). do. Phoenix, Ariz. (36). Stewart, Nev. (75). Owyhee, Nev. (35). Ruby Valley, Nev... Owyhee, Nev. (225)__ South Fork, Nev. (also includes Elko Colony/Owyhee, Nev. (225)_ Walker River Paiute, Nev. Yuma, Ariz. (120). Salt Lake City, Utah (190). Reno, Nev. (75). Carson City, Nev. (21). Reno, Nev. (140). Pocatello, Idaho (14). Yakima, Wash. (20). ATTACHMENT 3 Approximate time (hours) of FBI response to reported crimes Senator DECONCINI. In 1975-and it might have been the result of this letter-the Justice Department conducted a major study of jurisdiction in Indian country under the leadership of Doris M. Meissner. Do you have a copy of that that we might have? Mr. PAULEY. Yes; we do. Senator DECONCINI. Good, we will make that a part of the record at this point. [The requested material follows immediately after the prepared statement of Doris Meissner. See p. 217. Testimony resumes on p. 323.] STATEMENT OF DORIS MEISSNER, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF JUSTICE POLICY AND PLANNING My name is Doris Meissner, and I am Assistant Director of the Office of Justice Policy and Planning for the Department of Justice. I am pleased to be here today and to have the opportunity to share with you some of our concerns and ideas about the problem of reservation law enforcement. This hearing is indeed timely for while we sense a growing recognition of the problem, there is by no means a ready solution. Discussion and debate within the government and among the people who are affected is important and welcome. The Office of Justice Policy and Planning of the Department of Justice serves as a staff arm to the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General. We undertake not only the kinds of long range studies and analyses generally associated with a policy and planning operation but we also provide policy coordination and direction on those matters which tend to fall between the cracks in large institutions because they cross a number of bureaucratic boundary lines. They are everybody's problem and therefore nobody's problem. The Department of Justice policy on Indian matters has been, until recently, an example of the kind of issue which has suffered inattention because it crosses so many boundary lines. About 6 months ago a Departmental task force was formed to review our handling of Indian matters and to make recommendations for changes when necessary. I serve to co-chair that task force. It is currently grappling with the reservation law enforcement question after having spent several months dealing with another very important subject-Indian natural resource litigation. A quick look at the crime statistics makes it dramatically clear that we have a serious problem. The major crimes rate is about 50 percent higher on Indian reservations than it is in rural America as a whole. The violent crime rate on Indian reservations is eight times the rural rate while the property crime rate is about half of the rural rate. The murder rate among Indians is three times the rural rate while the assault rate is nearly 10 times as high. The Federal government has jurisdiction over approximately 90 Indian reservations in which approximately 500,000 Indians reside. Large numbers of nonIndians also reside within these reservations. Law enforcement responsibilities are divided between the Department of the Interior and the Department of Justice. Within Interior, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, through its division of Law Enforcement Services, provides police and other law enforcement personnel for most of the Indian reservations which are within the Federal jurisdiction. A number of tribes provide their own tribal police. In addition to the Federal government and the tribes, states have limited jurisdiction, which varies from reservation to reservation. It is particularly embarrassing that the present law enforcement problem exists in an area of primarily federal responsibility. This is not an example of the situation where the Federal government serves as a model for other law enforcement agencies. The United States Attorneys are responsible for prosecuting cases where a violation of federal law has occurred on the reservation. The United States Attorneys in the Western states are very concerned that the law enforcement problem receive appropriate attention with the executive branch and in Congress. They were particularly anxious that their views, which are based on day-to-day experience, be heard. We therefore organized a three day U.S. Attorneys conference to discuss these and related questions. That conference was held on January 27-29, in Phoenix, Arizona. It was attended by approximately 50 U.S. Attorneys and Assistant U.S. Attorneys from 24 federal judicial districts which have substantial Indian populations. It was also attended by representatives of most of the units of the Department which have responsibilities in Indian matters. These include the Criminal division, the Lands division, the Civil Rights division, the FBI, the U.S. Marshals and the Community Relations Service. Representatives of the Indian community, the Department of Interior, and the BIA were in attendance as well in order to provide for a thorough exchange of views and ideas. We are presently directing our efforts to the agenda of issues which emerged from that conference. Since I am sure that most of these issues are of concern to the Committee, I would like to share this agenda with you. DECLINATION OF CASES The BIA and many Indian communities have complained that Indian cases receive low priority attention by U.S. Attorneys and that many cases which are presented to the U.S. Attorney for prosecution are declined. Although there may be justification for failure to prosecute many of these cases in federal court, such a high rate of declination has an adverse affect on the communities involved. It has resulted in anger and frustration and lack of confidence in the law and order system. Communication problems exist with respect to declination by the United States Attorneys with criminal cases which arise on Indian reservations. Often the BIA or tribal law enforcement authorities are not advised of declination nor the reason for it. In some cases, the U.S. Attorney has declined the prosecution not because he feels the case is weak, but merely because he feels the case can more appropriately be prosecuted in tribal court. Yet the tribal officials are sometimes not advised that there has been a declination in favor of their jurisdiction. A case in effect falls between the cracks and is not prosecuted. Procedures for preventing this situation have been developed. In addition we are reviewing, with the help of the Department of Interior, the whole subject of declinations. RESERVATION POLICE PROTECTION Many people have suggested that federal law enforcement responsibility for Indian reservations be centralized in the Department of Justice. In our view this would be wholly inconsistent with Administration and Congressional policy on Indian matters which is, as we all know, one of self-determination. BIA policy has been to move toward contracting with tribes for police services rather than providing such services directly. In working to achieve the goal of self-determination we are concerned not with how to increase our role but with what we can do to improve the BIA and tribal police situation. Training assistance seems to be the most likely avenue. We are currently exploring ways to have the FBI with its training capability, and the Law Enforcement Assistant Administration, through funding, develop an aggressive program to augment programs currently available for reservation police officers. FBI RESOURCES AND RESPONSIBILITIES Recognizing that the primary responsibility for reservation policing lies with the Department of Interior, we also recognize that the FBI has significant respon sibilities as well. Reservations often cover extremely large, sparsely populated areas remote from major cities or even towns. The nearest FBI office is, not atypically, hundreds of miles from the scene of a crime. This makes it very difficult for FBI agents to respond to crimes committed on the reservation as quickly as might be desirable. Nonetheless, the FBI is conducting a comprehensive review of its resource allocations and the manner in which it fulfills its responsibility for investigating crimes which occur in Indian country. We are prepared to make shifts in resources and to develop plans for adjusting resources over time as the situation demands. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FBI AGENTS AND BIA SPECIAL OFFICERS The BIA has trained criminal investigators on most reservations. These investigators, or special officers, conduct the initial investigations for the majority of serious crimes which occur on Indian reservations. Most U.S. Attorneys, however, are accustomed to using FBI investigations as a basis for making decisions on whether to prosecute. Thus, the FBI conducts an independent investigation which often duplicates the BIA investigation. The result is that until the FBI investigation is completed, the offender typically remains at large. This causes physical safety problems within Indian communities and also fuels a generalized disrespect and cynicism toward the processes of law. This response is fortified by the fact that persons who commit minor crimes which are within jurisdiction of tribal courts are, typically, arrested and prosecuted immediately by tribal authorities. Thus the minor offender is arrested and the major offender remains at large. That fact, coupled with the high declination rate, makes it appear to the community that the Federal government is not doing a very good job in handling the crimes which fall within its jurisdiction. This is a particularly difficult problem but one we are finding ways to solve. LEAA FUNDING OF RESERVATION LAW ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS LEAA has played a major role in funding tribal law enforcement programs. LEAA's funding priorities have induced corrections, training of tribal court judges, police manpower and equipment, and juvenile delinquency programs. LEAA has recently re-established an Indian desk in order to ensure the best coordinaiton of its funding efforts in relation to tribal programs. LEGAL PROBLEMS Many tribes are beginning to assert jurisdiction over non-Indians who reside or who are presently within the boundaries of their reservations. The issue is an explosive one because many reservations possess very substantial non-Indian populations which will vigorously resist tribal court jurisdiction. The legal and historical factors involved in the issue of tribal jurisdiction over non-Indians are exceedingly complex. A more complete history and analysis of this aspect of the reservation law enforcement problem will be provided in other testimony at this hearing. I would simply say that the Department of Justice is in agreement with the general feeling that the confusion which surrounds the current state of the law on Indian jurisdiction questions is serious and merits attention. INDIAN JUVENILES Indian juvenile cases present serious problems. Most reservations lack facilities to handle delinquent juveniles and reservation jails are often substandard or nonexistent. On some reservations police refuse to arrest persons, particularly juveniles, because of the lack of any humane facility in which to detain them. Only a few reservations have special facilities for juveniles. Our task force is addressing this juvenile problem. This, then, is our internal agenda for attacking the reservation law enforcement problem. However, we are convinced that the issue is larger than any single department or committee. It must be a cooperative effort which includes the Indian people, the Congress, and the relevant departments of the executive branch. We recognize the seriousness of the problem and are committed to doing whatever is possible to improve a situation which in many areas has reached crisis proportions. We appreciate the opportunity to have presented our views at this hearing and look forward to cooperating with this Committee. I or my colleagues would be happy to answer any questions you might have. Thank you. |