not run afoul of the Fourth Amendment when the parole officer reasonably believes such search is necessary in-the performance of his duties.” Latta v. Fitzharris, 521 F.2d 246, 250-52 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 897, 96 S.Ct. 200, 46 L.Ed.2d 130 (1975). Defendant does not argue the state parole officers here lacked a reasonable belief that a search was necessary in the performance of their duties. He contends only that the parole officers lacked jurisdiction to conduct the search in Indian country. The parties have not cited, and the Court has not located, a case directly on point. The law is clear, however, that the State of South Dakota cannot exercise criminal jurisdiction in Indian country. Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. South Dakota, 900 F.2d 1164, 1170-71 (8th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>); State v. Spotted Horse, 462 N.W.2d 463, 467
holding that pursuant to amended public law 280 a tribe must consent to state court civil jurisdiction over actions arising against member indians in indian country holding that state failed to assume even partial jurisdiction in compliance with public law 280 holding that the united states may bring suit against a state to enforce compliance with federal law holding that a state law that allowed the state to assume only partial jurisdiction over indians and indian territory did not require strict scrutiny and was rationally related to a valid state objective holding the existence of jurisdiction in state courts to hear a dispute by a materials supplier against a contractor in an indian housing agency under the authority of public law 280