Happy New Year! We wanted to bring to your attention two cases out of the Court of Criminal Appeals from the end of 2024. These brief summaries are only meant to make you aware of the cases and are not offered as complete analyses of them and should not be considered legal advice.
The first is Tulsa v. O’Brien, 2024 OK CR 31. This is another installment in Indian Country jurisprudence post-McGirt. Here, Tulsa asked the Court to approve their exercise of jurisdiction in issuing traffic citations to certain Indians within Indian Country. The case involved a ticket issued by Tulsa PD to an Osage Indian within the part of Tulsa that sits within the Muscogee (Creek) reservation. In a methodical opinion, the Court found the state—and thus municipalities—has concurrent jurisdiction in Indian Country except when (1) that jurisdiction is specifically preempted by federal law or (2) when exercising jurisdiction would unlawfully infringe upon tribal self-government. Finding the General Crimes Act did not preempt state jurisdiction in Indian Country, the Court focused on the self-government aspect. In this case, because the ticketed driver was a “non-member” Indian, meaning he was not an enrolled member of the tribe with jurisdiction, the Court found the exercise of state jurisdiction did not interfere with tribal self-government and upheld Tulsa’s practice.
The other is State v. Velasquez, 2024 OK CR 29, in which the Court of Criminal Appeals overruled previous holdings regarding knock-and-announce violations. As you’re likely aware, Oklahoma law generally requires law enforcement to give notice of their authority and purpose and be refused admittance before they can force entry to execute a warrant. 22 O.S. § 1228. In the past, the Oklahoma court has employed the exclusionary rule in cases in which the knock-and-announce rule was violated. In Velasquez, finding the purpose of the knock-and-announce rule is to protect life, limb, and property, and not to act as a shield for offenders to avoid the government seeing or taking property described in a lawful warrant, the Court overruled the prior cases and adopted the federal approach as described in Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (2006).
As always, please make sure to review these cases with appropriate legal counsel prior to implementing any changes of procedure or policy based upon them.