Where Did the Process Stop?

Wayland Limpy, Sage Spang, and the unanswered questions about warrants, jurisdiction, and law enforcement

TRUTH IN FOCUS

By Steven Bullcoming Haworth

More than a year after Wayland Lance Limpy Jr., 19, of Lame Deer died following a shooting in Billings, the investigation into his death has returned to public attention. Billings Police identified Sage Francisco Spang as a person of interest in the July 23, 2025 shooting and publicly asked for information about his whereabouts. Now Leeland Chapman, known from Dog the Bounty Hunter, says he spent 17 days tracking Spang on the Northern Cheyenne Reservation and encountered him multiple times, while Northern Cheyenne Tribal President Gene Small says the tribe has been waiting more than 25 days for judicial action involving warrants. (Q2 News (KTVQ))

That leaves a question that may be more important than simply asking where Spang is:

Where did the legal process stop?

Wayland was not simply a name in a news report to me. He was one of my students. I taught him in my classroom and spent time after school helping him understand legal matters and how to advocate for himself. He was also a friend and connected to Corry and me through family. That explains my connection to this case, but this piece is not primarily about my feelings. It is about a young man who died, an investigation that remains unresolved, and a justice system involving several jurisdictions that should be able to explain exactly what happens next.

What Billings Police Said

Billings Police said the incident originated in the 700 block of Cook Avenue on July 23, 2025. Wayland was taken to Billings Clinic in a private vehicle, critically injured, and later pronounced dead. Police subsequently confirmed that a shooting had occurred and identified Spang as a “person of interest in the shooting from 7/23/25.” Police asked the public to provide information about his whereabouts. (Q2 News (KTVQ))

That description is important. A person of interest is not the same as someone who has been convicted of a crime, and Truth in Focus should not declare Spang guilty when a court has not done so. Evidence, probable cause, warrants, due process, and the presumption of innocence all matter.

But those protections do not prevent us from asking how the system is functioning.

Returning to the Reservation Does Not Make the Process Disappear

A person being located on the Northern Cheyenne Reservation does create jurisdictional considerations, but it does not mean an outside criminal case simply disappears at the reservation boundary.

The Northern Cheyenne Law and Order Code contains a specific extradition and removal process. Under the current code, a state or another tribe seeking a person on the reservation can submit an indictment, complaint and warrant, or other judicial evidence to the tribal system. The Tribal Prosecutor may then seek a Northern Cheyenne arrest warrant so the accused can be apprehended and brought before the Tribal Court. The code also provides for a removal hearing and allows the accused to waive that hearing and be promptly transferred to the appropriate authorities. The older version of the Northern Cheyenne code contained the same basic principle: an outside warrant was presented to a Northern Cheyenne judge, a tribal warrant could then issue, reservation law enforcement could take the person into custody, and removal proceedings followed. (Northern Cheyenne Tribe)

That means the real question is not simply, “Why didn’t Billings Police drive onto the reservation and arrest him?”

The better question is:

Was the required extradition process actually started, and if so, where is it now?

The Chain of Responsibility

There appears to be a sequence that should be possible to document.

Did Billings Police, the Yellowstone County Attorney, or another authorized Montana official obtain or request the necessary warrant?

Was the required charging information and outside warrant transmitted to the Northern Cheyenne system?

Did the Tribal Prosecutor receive it?

Was an application for a Northern Cheyenne arrest warrant presented to the Tribal Court?

Has that warrant been approved?

If it has been approved, which law-enforcement agency is responsible for serving it?

And if one of those steps has not happened, why not?

Those are not accusations. They are questions that should have factual answers.

What Role Does BIA Have?

This is where the Bureau of Indian Affairs Office of Justice Services deserves closer examination.

BIA itself says the Office of Justice Services is responsible for protecting life and property, enforcing laws, maintaining justice and order in Indian Country, and coordinating law-enforcement activities. Its officers work with tribal, federal, state, county, and local law-enforcement agencies. BIA also says its investigators handle criminal violations involving federal, state, county, local, and tribal codes within Indian Country. Montana and Wyoming fall within BIA-OJS District V. (Indian Affairs)

The situation on Northern Cheyenne is particularly important because law enforcement there is already divided among different responsibilities. Recent Montana Free Press reporting says BIA provides law-enforcement services on the reservation, while the tribe took over management of criminal investigations through Northern Cheyenne Investigative Services after a 2022 agreement. The tribe has separately sought greater control over law-enforcement program management. (Montana Free Press)

That arrangement makes the next questions unavoidable:

Was BIA-OJS notified that Spang had reportedly been located?

Was BIA asked to assist in apprehending him?

Did BIA receive a valid tribal warrant to execute?

If BIA did not have the legal authority to act, what was missing?

If the paperwork was waiting in Tribal Court, what part of the process still required action?

Until those questions are answered, it would be irresponsible to declare that BIA failed in this specific case. But it would be equally irresponsible to pretend BIA has no role worth examining.

A Broader Public-Safety Problem

This question does not exist in a vacuum.

The Northern Cheyenne Tribe has already been fighting the federal government over the adequacy of law-enforcement services on the reservation. Montana Free Press reported in August 2026 that the tribe has alleged BIA failed to provide “competent and effective” law enforcement, including adequate emergency response, staffing, investigations, detention services, and execution of arrest warrants. The tribe has alleged that hundreds of warrants have gone unserved and that the reservation can sometimes be patrolled by only two officers despite covering approximately 440,000 acres. (Montana Free Press)

Those allegations do not prove that BIA mishandled Wayland’s case.

But they make the question legitimate.

If Northern Cheyenne officials are already arguing in federal court that the existing law-enforcement system has serious structural problems—including unserved warrants—and another case now involves a reportedly located person of interest and questions surrounding warrant execution, then the public deserves to know whether those issues intersect.

Gene Small Is Raising the Question, Not Causing the Delay

Northern Cheyenne Tribal President Gene Small should not be portrayed as responsible for the delay described in recent reporting. His public comments indicate that he wants action taken.

Small told MTN News that, at the tribal level, there were warrants involved and that officials had been waiting more than 25 days, in his understanding, “for the judge to sign off on him.” He also said the tribe wanted Spang taken into custody because of concerns about continued alleged criminal activity in the community. (KPAX News)

That does not establish which judge has the matter, exactly what documents are awaiting approval, or whether every prerequisite for issuing a warrant has been satisfied.

It does establish that the tribal president is publicly asking for movement.

So this should not become a story blaming Northern Cheyenne leadership for an arrest that has not happened.

It should become a story asking which part of the system has the file right now.

Due Process Still Matters

Even when frustration is justified, due process cannot become optional.

Sage Spang has been publicly identified as a person of interest. That alone does not establish criminal responsibility for Wayland’s death. If prosecutors believe there is probable cause to charge him, that determination must be supported by evidence. Any warrant must be valid. The proper court must act. Law enforcement must operate within its legal authority. And Spang must have an opportunity to defend himself.

That protects all of us.

But due process is supposed to produce a process.

It should not become a phrase used to explain indefinite inaction.

If a warrant cannot legally be signed, authorities should be able to explain what remains missing. If the warrant has been signed but cannot yet be served, they should identify the jurisdictional obstacle. If BIA must act, the public should know whether BIA has received the necessary authority. If Billings or Yellowstone County still needs to provide something, that needs to be identified as well.

Transparency does not interfere with due process when authorities appropriately protect confidential investigative information.

It builds confidence that the process is actually moving.

Wayland Is Why These Questions Matter

Wayland was only 19 years old.

He had recently graduated from Lame Deer High School. His obituary remembers a young man who loved sports, his brothers and sister, and who “had many ideas” and tried to follow his dreams.

I knew some of that potential personally because I taught him.

Whatever happened in Wayland’s life before July 23, 2025 does not erase his humanity. It does not erase the student who sat in a classroom. It does not erase the young man who had years ahead of him to make different choices, discover different opportunities, build a career, raise a family, help other people, or simply become older and wiser.

He never got that chance.

That is why the jurisdictional questions matter.

They are not abstract arguments about federal Indian law.

A young man is dead.

A family is waiting.

A community is watching.

Where Did It Stop?

Truth in Focus cannot responsibly say today that Billings Police failed.

We cannot responsibly say BIA failed.

We cannot responsibly blame the Northern Cheyenne Tribe.

We cannot responsibly blame a judge without knowing exactly what has been submitted and what legal findings remain necessary.

And we cannot responsibly declare Sage Spang guilty.

But we can ask for the timeline.

When did outside authorities first determine that Spang was on the Northern Cheyenne Reservation?

When was an outside warrant or charging document transmitted?

When did the Northern Cheyenne Tribal Prosecutor receive it?

When was a tribal warrant requested?

What judicial action remains?

Was BIA-OJS asked to serve or assist with the warrant?

Who presently has legal responsibility for the next step?

And how long has that agency, court, or official had what they need to act?

Those answers would tell us far more than speculation ever could.

Accountability Means Finding the Broken Link

This case does not require us to choose between tribal sovereignty and public safety.

It requires the governments involved to make both work.

Northern Cheyenne law already provides a mechanism for dealing with people wanted by outside jurisdictions. BIA has law-enforcement responsibilities in Indian Country. Billings has an ongoing investigation into the death of a 19-year-old. Tribal leadership has publicly expressed its desire to see action taken.

So somewhere between those institutions, there should be a clear path forward.

If there is not, we need to know why.

Wayland deserves more than another year of questions.

His family deserves answers.

The community deserves transparency.

And every agency involved should be willing to explain which part of the process belongs to them—and whether they have done it.