2012-09-12_REVISION - M1980244 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Skeletal Remains Page 2 of 16 In interpreting the above we must bear in mind that the term "person" has been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court as including both natural persons and artificial persons, i.e. bodies corporate. Thus, Native American tribes, governments, organized communities and nations are legal persons and cannot be deprived of property by seizure or any other means which fail to adhere to "due process" and "just compensation.2 As we shall see, graveyards or burial plots are usually regarded as "property" which exist as ease- ments even when not mentioned in deeds of transfer. We can suggest, then, that Native American cemeteries also exist as easements to the fee, especially when land was taken without a "due process" recognition of the cemeteries' existence. This will be discussed further below. Here I merely wish to point out that the Fifth Amendment prohibits the "public use" of Native American property without "just compensation." Since the University of California is a public agency and since its collections are put to "public use, " it is very likely that the University will have to pay compensation for human remains and other property acquired without proper documents of transfer and evidence of the payment of "just compensation." The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States also is directly operative over cemeteries, especially in so far as the latter are part of the religious complex of any particular cultural tradition. One cannot, for example simply build a highway through a dedicated Roman Catholic cemetery nor can bodies be removed for study without due process of law. The First Amendment states that "no law respecting the establishment of religion" shall ever be legal. Clearly then, Native American sanctified cemeteries and burials must be accorded exactly the same legal protection as are accorded white Christian cemeteries or white Jewish cemeteries. Moreover, it would seem clear that the "taking" of religious places of worship and sanctified cemeteries requires a special form of due process in order to meet First Amendment requirements.a The Fourth Amendment provides protection for graves against searches and seizures without a warrant: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but on probable cause. It would seem patently clear that any exhumation of a grave for purposes of study or removal and study constitutes a "search." It would also constitute a "seizure" in the event that the persons with vital interest in the grave were not contacted and did not grant permission. We can be sure that, in most cases, Native American graves were so intimately associated with the "persons [and] houses" of "the people" as to clearly constitute part of their "effects" if not of the houses and persons themselves. We can imagine a warrant being issued to exhume a grave where there was "probable cause" of foul play but it is very difficult to imagine a warrant being issued because of a mere suspicion of scientific utility or because the grave constituted an inconvenience to some current owner of the surface. It must be recalled that "tribe," "village" or "community" can be substituted for "persons" in the above Amendment. Other provisions of the Federal Constitution also apply to human remains and cemeteries, including especially the Fourteenth Amendment. This amendment requires that from July 28, 1868, forwards: No state shall make or enforce any laws which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Thus the State of California, during virtually the entire existence of the University, has been required to guarantee the "equal protection of the laws" to Native Americans and to not abridge their "privileges and immunities." What does this mean? Specifically it means that state agencies cannot httn• / /nas rneclaviceclrn /Forhes /I;keletnl Remnins_html 9/19/2012