With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". by or against Indians on Indian reservations, had jurisdiction to execute search warrants within the reservation pursuant to an exercise of the state’s jurisdiction. See id. at 1216-17. The Supreme Court has also recognized that a state, even absent a Congressional delegation of jurisdiction over crimes occurring within Indian country, may exercise jurisdiction over a crime committed within Indian country by non-Indians against non-Indians. See United States v. McBratney, 104 U.S. 621, 624, 26 L.Ed. 869, 870 (1881). However, a state court may not issue a warrant to search an area within Indian country where the state does not have jurisdiction over the underlying crime. See United States v. Baker, 894 F.2d 1144, 1146 (10th Cir.1990); Ross v. Neff, 905 F.2d 1349 (10th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>); Sycuan Band of Mission Indians v. Roache, 788

A: holding that the state of oklahoma did not have jurisdiction to make an arrest within indian country where the state had neither received by express grant nor acted pursuant to congressional authorization to assume criminal jurisdiction over the reservation
B: holding that state of south dakota does not have criminal jurisdiction over indians in indian country
C: holding that state has no jurisdiction over civil suit by nonindian against indian where cause of action arises on indian reservation
D: 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
A.