Court and county officials met to review changes from recent legislation that will require local authorities to honor some tribal warrants and to hold time-limited hearings when people are detained on tribal authority. The court’s representatives said the new rules take effect in July and raise immediate questions about how hearings will work and who pays for appointed counsel.

The discussion focused on three practical issues: (1) which tribal warrants must be honored (distinguishing certified tribes whose codes meet procedural standards from noncertified tribes), (2) whether a statutory requirement will trigger appointment of counsel at the tribal-warrant hearing and how indigency will be determined, and (3) how detention and transport will be handled when a person is arrested on local charges but also has a tribal warrant.

Court staff described the law as creating a hearing analogous to an extradition proceeding for some cases. They said certified tribal warrants — those from tribes with codes the state has reviewed — may be treated differently from noncertified warrants. For noncertified tribal warrants, staff said the county will likely need to hold a hearing to decide whether to continue to hold the person for transfer.

Commissioners and court staff traded practical questions about capacity and costs: who must be present at the hearing, whether counsel must be appointed and, if so, whether the county can be reimbursed by a tribal government. Court staff said a short training had covered the mechanics and the certified/noncertified distinction but not the deeper legal questions about counsel and reimbursement. Commissioners asked the court to forward the exact bill number and draft language so the county’s legal staff can review whether appointment of counsel will be required and how that should be implemented.

The court also raised operational items unrelated to tribal warrants, including updates on courtroom audio upgrades and scheduling for a governor’s judicial appointment review. Commissioners asked the court to relay specific statutory citations and the text of the law so county attorneys and the jail can plan for the July implementation date.

The meeting yielded no formal policy vote; commissioners asked staff to follow up with the county prosecutor and jail administration and requested the court provide the bill citation and any departmental training materials so the county can assess resource impacts and potential reimbursement pathways.