IN THE COURT OF INDIAN OFFENSES OF THE
CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma,

Plaintiff,
vs.

Douglas L. Dry,

Defendant.

Case No. CRM-97-02

RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT THEREOF AND
SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION TO DISMISS AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT THEREOF

Comes now the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma (the Nation) by and through its tribal prosecutor and in response to the defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Supplemental Motion to Dismiss would state:

§17-7 Definitions (A) of the Choctaw Nation Criminal Code provides:

"Police officer," "police," or "peace officer" means any duly appointed person who is charged with the responsibility of maintaining public order, safety, and health by the enforcement of all laws, ordinances or orders of this Nation or any of its political subdivisions and who is authorized to bear arms in execution of his responsibilities.

Defendant is charged with having violated § 17-8(B) of the Code, which provides:

Every person who, without justifiable or excusable cause knowingly commits battery or assault and battery upon the person of a police officer, sheriff, deputy sheriff, highway patrolman, corrections personnel, or other Nation peace officer employed by any Nation governmental agency to enforce Nation laws while said officer is in the performance of his duties, upon conviction, is guilty of a crime.

In defendant's Motion and Supplemental Motion to Dismiss, he admits that Ben Veenstra is a Durant Police Officer. Moreover, defendant further states that "Veenstra was paid as a private security guard using strictly tribal funds Veenstra was wearing a Durant police department uniform and badge. (lines 16-17, page 2 defendant's Supplemental Motion) The Nation would submit that the court need look no further than the code provisions set forth above and the defendant's own motions order to reach the conclusion that said motions are wholly without merit.

Finally, defendant offers a truly bizarre argument which, as best as this attorney can discern contends that anyway you characterize Mr. Veenstra, this Court has no jurisdiction. Enough said. For the reasons set forth above, defendant's Motion and Supplemental Motion to Dismiss should be overruled.

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

I hereby certify that on the 2nd day of September, 1997, I mailed a true and correct copy of the above foregoing to Scott Kayla Morrison, Attorney for Defendant, 103 1/2 West-Main, P.O. Box 637, Wilburton, OK 74578, with full postage prepaid thereon.