Tohono O'odham Roadblock Incident
 

Under Color of Law:

42 U.S.C. § 1983, commonly referred to as "section 1983" provides:

Every person who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, Suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

One of the issues to be adjudicated during the evidentiary hearing on April 25th, is whether the TOPD officers were acting within their capacity as state/federal enforcement agents at the time I was stopped or were they operating solely within their capacity as tribal officers. The judge has already ruled the officers were acting in their capacity as state law enforcement officers at the time they arrested and cited me for alleged violations of state law because this is not an inherent power of a tribal authority. What the defense is trying to do in their motion to reconsider is limit the scope of the inquiry to only those actions taken by the defendant's after I was arrested and charged by claiming the roadblock itself was conducted solely under tribal authority. In this way, the defense hopes to avoid questions regarding the nature of the roadblock itself.

To counter this argument, I have put together evidence showing the defendant's were acting under color of state law from the inception of the roadblock. Some of this evidence includes observations that the defendants:

  • Used official Arizona citation forms instead of Tohono O'odham Nation forms
  • Used TOPD vehicles with Arizona government license plates
  • Cited individuals for violations of Arizona law
  • Obtained a certification from the Department of Justice that they were operating within the scope of their federal employment at the roadblock
  • Admitted the roadblock was a Joint Task Force Operation
  • Checked for compliance with Arizona's seatbelt law for non-tribal members only
  • Checked for compliance with Arizona's insurance requirement for non-tribal members only

The usage of Arizona citation forms and Arizona government license plates are symbols of Arizona authority - not tribal. When individuals were cited for violations of Arizona law by the defendants, they were operating under Arizona authority - not tribal. The defendant's obtained a certification that they were conducting the roadblock within the scope of their federal employment with the Bureau of Indian Affairs. This represents federal authority - not tribal. Defendant Ford admitted to checking for compliance with Arizona seatbelt and insurance requirements for non-tribal members only during the initial stop. He stated similar checks were not conducted on tribal members because the tribe has no such requirements. Such checks are conducted solely under Arizona authority - not tribal.

This evidence and more shows conclusively that the defendant's were operating the roadblock under color of Arizona and federal law. An in-depth analysis of several of these issues appears below:

Evidence:



Back to Lawsuit home page