People v. LeBlanc

248 N.W.2d 199, 399 Mich. 31
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 27, 1976
DocketDocket Nos. 56547, 56567, (Calendar Nos. 6, 7)
StatusPublished
Cited by33 cases

This text of 248 N.W.2d 199 (People v. LeBlanc) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People v. LeBlanc, 248 N.W.2d 199, 399 Mich. 31 (Mich. 1976).

Opinions

Williams, J.

Defendant A. B. LeBlanc, a Chippewa Indian and an enrolled member of the Bay Mills Indian Community, was arrested on September 28, 1971 in Pendills Bay of Lake Superior about 20 miles west of Sault Ste. Marie by a conservation officer for the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and charged with fishing commercially without a license and with fishing with an illegal device, a gill net. He was convicted of both charges in district court.

Defendant’s appeal of these convictions presents complex issues involving, on the one hand, the existence and continued vitality of fishing rights for Chippewa Indians under the Treaty of 1836 and the Treaty of 1855, and, on the other hand, the authority of the State of Michigan in the conservation of natural resources to regulate the exercise of whatever fishing rights remain reserved by the Chippewas under those treaties.

[36]*36Specifically, three central issues require resolution:

(1) Did the Chippewa Indians, pursuant to the Treaty of 1836, in ceding their title to the territory involved, reserve the right to fish in the waters where defendant was arrested?

(2) If such fishing rights were reserved by the Chippewas in the Treaty of 1836, were these rights relinquished by the Treaty of 1855?

(3) If the Chippewas continue to possess reserved fishing rights, may the State of Michigan regulate the exercise of those rights, and if so, to what extent?

We hold that the Chippewa Indians did reserve fishing rights in the waters where defendant was arrested pursuant to the Treaty of 1836, that these fishing rights were not relinquished by the Treaty of 1855, and that the State of Michigan has limited authority to regulate those rights, as described below.

Specifically, with regard to the state’s authority to regulate off-reservation fishing rights, the state regulation is valid only if:

1) it is necessary for the preservation of the fish protected by the regulation;

2) the application of the regulation to the Indians holding the off-reservation fishing right is necessary for the preservation of the fish protected;

3) and the regulation does not discriminate against the treaty Indians.

Pursuant to these holdings, we affirm the Court qf Appeals reversal of defendant LeBlanc’s conviction for fishing without a commercial license, and affirm the Court of Appeals remand to the district court on the charge of fishing with an illegal [37]*37device for a determination of whether the state prohibition of gill nets meets the standards for state regulation of off-reservation fishing rights and whether defendant LeBlanc’s second conviction must stand or fall. The standards for these determinations are outlined in this opinion.

I — Facts

Defendant LeBlanc has not disputed that he was fishing commercially without a license and with a gill net at the time of his arrest.

That arrest took place on September 28, 1971 in Pendills Bay of Lake Superior, a part of Whitefish Bay. (See Appendix—Map I.)

At trial before District Court Judge Lambros, defendant’s sole defense was that he had a right to fish free from state regulations and control pursuant to the Treaty of 1836.

He was found guilty of engaging in commercial fishing without a license under MCLA 308.22; MSA 13.1513 and of fishing with an illegal device under MCLA 302.1; MSA 13.1602.

These convictions were affirmed by the Circuit Court of Chippewa County on December 27, 1972.

The Court of Appeals, however, granted leave, and in October of 1974 reversed defendant’s conviction for fishing commercially without a license, holding that the application of the license requirement conflicted with defendant’s treaty rights, and remanded the case to district court for a determination of whether the prohibition of gill nets is necessary to prevent a substantial depletion of the fish supply. Under the Court of Appeals decision, if the state does not meet the burden of proving that the prohibition against gill nets is necessary to prevent a substantial depletion of the fish supply [38]*38on remand, then the defendant’s conviction under MCLA 302.1; MSA 13.1602 must also be reversed.

Both the people and defendant LeBlanc applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, leave being granted on February 26, 1975.

The people appeal the Court of Appeals holding that the Chippewas reserved "fishing rights in all the waters adjoining those lands ceded by the treaty [of 1836] and that such rights were not relinquished by any provision of the Treaty of 1855”.

Defendant LeBlanc challenges the Court of Appeals holding that the state may regulate the manner of taking fish if the regulation is "necessary to prevent a substantial depletion of the fish supply”.

II — Reserved Fishing Rights Under the Treaty of 1836

The Treaty of 1836 was negotiated by the United States with the Chippewa and Ottawa Indians in Michigan as part of an official policy of removing Indians from their traditional homelands and resettling them west of the Mississippi, beyond the borders of the rapidly expanding civilization of non-Indian Americans.1

In Article First of this particular treaty, the Chippewas and the Ottawas ceded to the United States territory now constituting roughly the northern third of Michigan’s Lower Peninsula and the eastern half of its Upper Peninsula.2 (See Appendix — Map II.)

[39]*39In exchange, the Chippewas and Ottawas were to receive certain monetary payment for a period of years, and certain land to the southwest of the Missouri River where they were to find their "final settlement”.

Under the treaty, the Chippewas reserved certain rights. Defendant LeBlanc based his claim of treaty fishing rights on two alternative grounds arising out of two separate treaty provisions, Article Thirteenth and Article Third.

In Article Thirteenth, the Chippewas retained certain rights in the area ceded pursuant to Article First:

"Article Thirteenth. The Indians stipulate for the right of hunting on the lands ceded, with the other usual privileges of occupancy, until the land is required for settlement.”

Defendant LeBlanc argues first that rights reserved in Article Thirteenth include the right to fish.

In Article Third, the Chippewas reserved certain areas along the coast of the Great Lakes, including a large area in the Upper Peninsula which encompassed the present-day site of the Bay Mills Reservation, home of defendant LeBlanc. It is argued second that Pendills Bay, where defendant was arrested, was included in the area reserved by the Chippewas in Article Third and is part of the present day Bay Mills Reservation.3

The District Court and the Court of Appeals concluded that defendant LeBlanc did hold off-reservation fishing rights pursuant to Article Thir[40]*40teenth.4 We agree with this conclusion and reject defendant’s argument that Pendills Bay is part of the present-day Bay Mills Reservation.

A. Article Thirteenth of the Treaty of1836.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

People of Michigan v. Walter Joseph Caswell
Michigan Court of Appeals, 2025
United States v. Michigan
131 F.4th 409 (Sixth Circuit, 2025)
United States v. State of Mich.
68 F.4th 1021 (Sixth Circuit, 2023)
Samuel Jerome v. Michael Crum
Michigan Court of Appeals, 2018
Confederated Tribes of Colville Reservation v. Anderson
903 F. Supp. 2d 1187 (E.D. Washington, 2011)
CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF COLVILLE v. Anderson
761 F. Supp. 2d 1101 (E.D. Washington, 2011)
Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation v. Anderson
761 F. Supp. 2d 1101 (E.D. Washington, 2011)
Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin v. Thompson
922 F. Supp. 184 (W.D. Wisconsin, 1996)
Attorney General v. Hermes
339 N.W.2d 545 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1983)
United States v. State Of Michigan
653 F.2d 277 (Sixth Circuit, 1981)
United States v. State
653 F.2d 277 (Sixth Circuit, 1981)
United States v. Michigan
89 F.R.D. 307 (W.D. Michigan, 1980)
Michigan United Conservation Clubs v. Anthony
280 N.W.2d 883 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1979)
United States v. State of Mich.
471 F. Supp. 192 (W.D. Michigan, 1979)
People v. Turner
272 N.W.2d 346 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1978)
Turner v. Ford Motor Co.
265 N.W.2d 400 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
248 N.W.2d 199, 399 Mich. 31, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-leblanc-mich-1976.