{"id":825,"date":"2014-07-08T09:00:49","date_gmt":"2014-07-08T13:00:49","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/hlscasestudies\/?p=825"},"modified":"2014-07-14T13:50:34","modified_gmt":"2014-07-14T17:50:34","slug":"crossing-the-line-the-dos-and-donts-of-a-cross-deputization-agreement","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/hlscasestudies\/2014\/07\/08\/crossing-the-line-the-dos-and-donts-of-a-cross-deputization-agreement\/","title":{"rendered":"Crossing the Line: The Dos and Don\u2019ts of a Cross-Deputization Agreement"},"content":{"rendered":"

New Product: The Case of Cross-Deputization<\/em><\/p>\n

Professor Joseph Singer\u2019s new problem solving workshop case, \u201cThe Case of Cross-Deputization\u201d teaches first-year law students the basics of planning transactions and resolving controversy<\/a>. In the simulated case, the conflict between the legal authority of the Spokane Tribe and of neighboring Lincoln County has made law enforcement difficult on the reservation\u2019s borders, particularly when it comes to stopping drunk drivers. Tribal officers cannot pursue drunk drivers once they leave the reservation, and thus would like the authority to engage in \u201chot pursuit.\u201d<\/p>\n

Participants adopt the positions of either the Lincoln County Sheriff\u2019s Counsel or Tribal Counsel to negotiate a cross-deputization agreement. The parties must reach a compromise regarding hot pursuit off of the reservation, ancillary areas of shared law enforcement, and the related costs and waivers that such a partnership entails. There is significant pressure to reach an agreement: a Washington state statute mandates an arbitrated cross-deputization if the parties cannot agree. However, the tribe has sovereign immunity, and cannot be forced into an arbitrated agreement without its consent.<\/p>\n

Professor Singer wrote the case to fill a need in the HLS Problem Solving Workshop curriculum. \u201cThe case involves a contract negotiation between sovereigns, something that is in some ways similar and in other ways very different from business or family contracts,\u201d\u00a0said Singer. \u201cIt also involved settlement, not of a lawsuit, but of a problem created by applicable law setting baselines in a manner that interfered with law enforcement goals of both sovereigns. It also shows\u00a0how negotiation can be an exercise, rather than alimitation, on sovereignty.<\/p>\n

Like all Problem Solving Workshop cases<\/a>, The Case of Cross-Deputization involves client interactions. \u201cThe case gives students the opportunity to present the agreement to the client and explain how it meets the client\u2019s goals, what was worth giving up to achieve those goals, and what goals could not be attained. It put the students in a role as government lawyers advising clients, who have obligations to promote the public welfare, rather than lawyers who serve private clients, whose goals are somewhat different.\u201d<\/p>\n

The case teaches participants the fundamental best practices for a negotiation:<\/p>\n