United States v. Peshlakai – Limiting the Exclusionary Rule: No Automatic Suppression for Violations of Tribal Federal-Detainer Statutes

Introduction

In United States v. Peshlakai, the Tenth Circuit confronted a novel intersection of Indian law, federal criminal procedure, and the constitutionally-based exclusionary rule. Rumaldo Peshlakai, a Navajo Nation citizen, sought suppression of statements and evidence obtained after his federal arrest, arguing that the FBI violated the Navajo Nation’s Federal Detainer Statute (17 N.N.C. §§ 1962-66) and, by extension, the Fourth Amendment and the 1868 Navajo Treaty. The district court denied suppression; the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that even if the statute were violated, suppression is not an “obvious” or available remedy absent a statutory provision or a clear constitutional infringement.

The decision establishes an important principle: a breach of tribal federal-detainer procedures does not automatically trigger the exclusionary rule in federal court unless the statute itself or a fundamental constitutional right expressly provides for suppression. It also re-affirms the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (felon-in-possession) under circuit precedent.

Summary of the Judgment

• Procedural posture: Appeal from denial of a motion to suppress and motions to dismiss an indictment after a conditional guilty plea.
• Holding 1 (Suppression): The Court exercised its discretion to affirm on the alternative ground—advanced by the Government and unaddressed by the defendant—that suppression is unavailable because the Navajo Detainer Statute contains no express suppression remedy and does not implicate a fundamental right.
• Holding 2 (Second Amendment): Challenges to § 922(g)(1) remain foreclosed by Tenth Circuit precedent (Vincent v. Bondi, 127 F.4th 1263 (10th Cir. 2025)).
• Outcome: District court’s denial of suppression and dismissal motions affirmed.

Detailed Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

1. Ross v. Neff, 905 F.2d 1349 (10th Cir. 1990) – The defendant relied heavily on Ross (warrantless state arrest in Indian Country outside officer’s jurisdiction). The Court distinguished it, noting that Ross concerned state officers lacking jurisdiction; federal officers possess nationwide jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3052.
2. United States v. Minjares-Alvarez, 264 F.3d 980 (10th Cir. 2001) – Forms the backbone of the alternative holding. Minjares-Alvarez held that suppression is generally unavailable for statutory or treaty violations that do not themselves provide an exclusionary remedy or implicate fundamental rights.
3. United States v. Li, 206 F.3d 56 (1st Cir. 2000) – Quoted in Minjares-Alvarez; establishes that the exclusionary rule traditionally applies only to violations of the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments.
4. United States v. Fox, 573 F.3d 1050 (10th Cir. 2009) – Recognizes the federal government’s authority to prosecute § 922(g)(1) offenses in Indian Country and interprets the 1868 Navajo Treaty provision on surrender of offenders.
5. Vincent v. Bondi, 127 F.4th 1263 (10th Cir. 2025) – Confirms § 922(g)(1)’s constitutionality post-Bruen.

Legal Reasoning

1. Scope of the Navajo Federal Detainer Statute

The district court found the statute applies only when a Navajo defendant is an “inmate” in the Navajo Department of Corrections and where there is concurrent Navajo and federal criminal jurisdiction. The appellate panel, without endorsing or rejecting that reading, determined that even assuming a violation occurred, suppression was unwarranted.

2. Exclusionary Rule Framework

• The exclusionary rule is judicially created and generally confined to violations of constitutional magnitude (primarily the Fourth Amendment).
• Minjares-Alvarez sets a two-step test:
  1. Does the statute/treaty create fundamental rights equal to those in the Bill of Rights?
  2. If not, does the statute/treaty itself expressly authorize suppression?
• The Navajo Detainer Statute does neither: it embodies a procedural accommodation between sovereigns but does not articulate individual “fundamental” rights nor any remedy of exclusion.

3. Waiver and “Obviousness” Doctrine

Crucial to the panel’s decision was the defendant’s failure to rebut the Government’s alternative argument on appeal. Under Hasan v. AIG Prop. & Cas., 935 F.3d 1092 (10th Cir. 2019), an appellee’s unopposed ground for affirmance is accepted unless its error is “obvious.” Given the settled law around statutory violations and suppression, the panel found no obvious error, thereby adopting the Government’s position.

4. Constitutional Challenge to § 922(g)(1)

The Court summarily rejected the as-applied Second Amendment challenge by invoking binding precedent (Vincent v. Bondi). Without a new en banc or Supreme Court decision, panels remain bound by earlier circuit authority.

Impact of the Decision

• Tribal-Federal Interface: Clarifies that federal courts will not reflexively apply the exclusionary rule to violations of tribal statutes governing inter-sovereign custody transfers.
• Litigation Strategy: Defense counsel must now either:
  • Show how a tribal or federal statutory violation implicates a fundamental right, or
  • Cite statutory language expressly authorizing suppression—for the Navajo Detainer Statute, none exists.
• Statutory Drafting Prompt: Tribal legislatures wishing to ensure an exclusionary remedy must expressly incorporate it.
• Re-affirmation of § 922(g)(1): The panel’s concise disposition on the Second Amendment issue signals continued stability of felon-in-possession prosecutions in the Tenth Circuit.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Exclusionary Rule: A court-created doctrine that prevents the government from using evidence obtained in violation of constitutional rights, primarily the Fourth Amendment.
• Federal Detainer Statute (Navajo): Tribal law requiring federal or other sovereign officials to lodge a written detainer and obtain a tribal court order before removing a Navajo inmate charged with both tribal and federal crimes.
• Waiver vs. Forfeiture:
  • Waiver – Intentional relinquishment of a known right; here, failing to argue suppression on appeal after the Government raised the point.
  • Forfeiture – Accidental oversight; the court applies “plain error” review.
• Obviousness Standard: When an appellee offers an unopposed ground for affirmance, the court will adopt it unless its flaw is apparent from established law.

Conclusion

United States v. Peshlakai carves out a clear doctrinal limitation: a violation of a tribal federal-detainer statute, standing alone, will not justify exclusion of evidence in federal court absent explicit statutory language or a directly implicated fundamental constitutional right. The ruling:

1. Strengthens precedent limiting the reach of the exclusionary rule to core constitutional guarantees;
2. Guides tribal legislatures on how to secure enforcement mechanisms for their laws when interfacing with federal authorities;
3. Underscores the importance of full appellate briefing—strategic silence can forfeit potentially meritorious arguments; and
4. Re-confirms, for the Tenth Circuit, that § 922(g)(1) withstands Second Amendment scrutiny.

Going forward, attorneys litigating in Indian Country must carefully analyze statutory remedies and constitutional foundations before seeking suppression, while tribal lawmakers might revisit their codes to provide express enforcement provisions if exclusion is desired.