While U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert Illman in Eureka had previously agreed<\/a> with the county that the tribes\u2019 tribal sovereignty claims were legally insufficient \u2014 insofar as they implied that California\u2019s criminal law couldn\u2019t be enforced on tribal lands \u2014 the amended claims fared better.<\/p>\n The tribe argues in its amended complaint<\/a> filed in February that the Mendocino County sheriff\u2019s raids on their reservation were intended to enforce county ordinances and code provisions rather than state criminal law, which would be a violation of federal prohibitions against the enforcement of local regulations on tribal land.<\/p>\n Illman rejected Mendocino County\u2019s argument that the new claims should be stricken because they mirrored the previous claims the judge had dismissed without leave to amend.<\/p>\n The previous dismissal was concerned with the status of California state cannabis laws, which the judge found to be criminal and enforceable on the reservation under Public Law 280, the federal statute that delineates states\u2019 jurisdiction over Indian lands.<\/p>\n By contrast, Illman said, the new claims are predicated on factual questions concerning Mendocino County\u2019s motives, the procedure used for obtaining the search warrants, as well as the scope and the execution of the warrants, which require a different analysis and rely on separate, established case law.<\/p>\n \u201cEven though the new claims fall under the identical titles of PL 280 jurisdiction and tribal sovereignty, the legal and factual questions are completely different, and the new and old claims cannot be considered duplicates of each other,\u201d Illman wrote.<\/p>\n The judge also denied Mendocino County\u2019s separate bid to dismiss the amended claims for failing to state a legally valid claim.<\/p>\n \u201cThe court finds that plaintiffs have stated enough facts to sufficiently allege that the search warrants violated the Fourth Amendment,\u201d he said. \u201cIn addition to their cannabis-specific elements, the warrants also authorize the investigation and seizure of property related to statutory violations that may not otherwise have been authorized in Indian country.\u201d<\/p>\n Attorneys for the tribe and for the county didn\u2019t immediately respond to requests for comment on the ruling.<\/p>\n