believe it is the wrong model for New Mexico to define state jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed outside tribal boundaries. Much of the checkerboard area of northwestern New Mexico may be regarded, depending on the observer’s point of view, as within the overall ambit of a tribal chapter or a similar political subdivision. If that is now to be the limit on state jurisdiction to prosecute, then the majority opinion marks a radical shift from precedent. To my knowledge, no New Mexico appellate case has ever limited a state prosecution unless the crime was in fact committed on land that was either within tribal or pueblo boundaries, or an Indian allotment, or on land that was actually set aside for the benefit of a tribe or pueblo and its members. See Dick, 1999-NMCA-062, ¶¶ 24-27 (<HOLDING>). Additionally, I know of no federal criminal
holding that the arrest of an indian on indian land was illegal because the state had no jurisdiction over the reservation to enforce its laws  including the execution of a search warrant  unless congress consented to the states jurisdiction holding that a tribe had no property interest in the continued operation of a bureau of indian affairs office on the reservation holding that an indian reservation was a federal area subject to the haydencartwright act but analyzing the tax as levied on a nonindian contractor doing work for the bureau of indian affairs on tribal land holding that state has no jurisdiction over civil suit by nonindian against indian where cause of action arises on indian reservation holding that the state did not have jurisdiction over crime committed on land held by the bureau of indian affairs for the use and benefit of a discrete indian community