4 NICS App. 91, MIC v. WILLIAMS (July 1996)

IN THE METLAKATLA TRIBAL COURT OF APPEALS

    METLAKATLA INDIAN COMMUNITY

    METLAKATLA, ALASKA

    Metlakatla Indian Community, Respondent

    v.

    Gloria J. Williams, Appellant

    No. 95-18 (July 25, 1996)

SUMMARY

Magistrate’s Court found Appellant guilty of resisting lawful arrest, threat, and indecent exposure. Appellant appeals the convictions, contending that the charges and convictions resulted from a search conducted pursuant to an invalid search warrant.

A search warrant that fails to describe with particularity the property to be searched or the persons or things to be seized is invalid on its face. We reverse.

FULL TEXT

Before:            Elbridge Coochise, Chief Justice; Dennis L. Nelson, Justice; John L. Roe, Justice.

Appearances:  Harris Atkinson, spokesperson for Appellant; Gloria J. Williams, Appellant; Sol Atkinson, for the Metlakatla Indian Community.

This matter came before the Metlakatla Tribal Court of Appeals pursuant to Appellant’s Notice of Appeal filed on August 24, 1995. Appellant appeals the August 24, 1995 judgment of the Magistrate’s Court finding her guilty of resisting lawful arrest, threat, and indecent exposure, in violation of §§ 17, 19, and 54, respectively, of the Code of Criminal Offenses. As the basis of her appeal, Appellant alleges that the search warrant issued by the Magistrate’s Court was invalid.

JURISDICTION

This Court has personal jurisdiction over Appellant because she is a member of the Metlakatla Indian Community. The act which is the subject of this appeal occurred within the exterior boundaries of the Metlakatla Indian Reservation, giving rise to territorial jurisdiction. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to Ordinance 653, § 1 (Ordinance Relating to Law and Order), and Article V of the Metlakatla Constitution.

4 NICS App. 91, MIC v. WILLIAMS (July 1996) p. 92

ISSUE ON APPEAL

The issue on appeal is whether a search warrant that does not contain a specific address, a date, or a time period within which the premises is to be searched is valid.

DISCUSSION

Metlakatla Police officers obtained a warrant to search Appellant’s residence for alcoholic beverages, drugs, and contraband allegedly concealed in her house. Appellant alleges that the search warrant was invalid. Appellant further alleges that her arrest and subsequent conviction for resisting lawful arrest, threat, and indecent exposure were also improper.

The search warrant which Appellant challenges did not contain a specific address of the residence, not did it specify what part of the house was to be searched. The warrant authorizes a search of the “blue house” on Haines Street. The warrant does not identify with any further particularity the property to be searched except to state that it is “Gloria William’s residence”. The parties admit that there is more than one blue house on Haines Street. Respondent’s assertion that “everyone knows where everyone else lives” in the community does not justify the failure of the warrant to “particularly describe” the property and the portion of the property to be searched.

The search warrant also failed to specify a time period within which it was to be executed. Further, there is no indication on the warrant regarding the date and time the warrant was issued. The warrant contains blank spaces specifically for such information, yet those blank spaces remain empty.

The Metlakatla Code of Criminal Offenses specifically addresses the parameters within which the Magistrate’s Court may issue a search warrant. Title I, § 8 (b) of that Code provides that any Magistrate of the Magistrate’s Court may issue:

. . . a Search Warrant for the search and seizure of property in the ownership, custody or possession of any person subject to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate’s Court, which shall be signed by the Magistrate and issued only upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, that an offense subject to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate’s Court has been committed and which shall name or describe the person or place to be searched and describe particularly any articles of property to be seized. . . .

Ordinance 653, Title I, § 8(b) (emphasis added). The search warrant at issue in this case does not comply with the requirements of the Code of Criminal Offenses.

The right of individuals to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures is guaranteed by the Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA) of 1968. Section 1302(2) of the ICRA provides:

4 NICS App. 91, MIC v. WILLIAMS (July 1996) p. 93

No Indian tribe in exercising powers of self-government shall . . . violate the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable search and seizures, nor issue warrants, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the person or thing to be seized.

25 U.S.C. § 1302(2) (emphasis added).

Even had the search warrant contained sufficient information, this Court notes that the supporting affidavit contains no facts which would lead a reasonable person to believe that any crime had been or was being committed on the property in question. The affidavit states only that the police officers could “hear loud music and people talking loud from inside the residence” and that Appellant slammed the door in the officer’s face; neither of these facts would lead to a reasonable belief that Appellant was committing a crime.

CONCLUSION

The search warrant at issue does not contain sufficient information to satisfy the Code’s due process requirements. This Court finds that the search warrant is invalid on its face.

The judgment of the Magistrate’s Court is hereby reversed. Appellant’s conviction on charges of resisting lawful arrest, threat, and indecent exposure, subsequent to the issuance and execution of the invalid search warrant, are reversed.