ILNews

ACLU of Indiana celebrates 60 years of guarding founding principles

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Among the collection of framed degrees, recognitions and pictures hanging on Ken Falk’s office walls is a photograph of an overpass spray-painted with the words “Roadblocks are unconstitutional.”

The picture is a visual reminder of Indianapolis v. Edmonds, 531 U.S. 32 (2000), a case that Falk, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, fought all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States. At issue was whether vehicle checkpoints set up by Indianapolis police to search for drugs constituted a violation of the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

aclu Ken Falk, American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana legal director (IL Photo/ Aaron P. Bernstein)

While fighting this case in court, Falk received a phone call from a man who described himself as rich, white and one who never thought he would be calling the ACLU of Indiana. However, the caller was incensed about the roadblocks and asserted no government was going to randomly stop him.

The dispute over what is and is not constitutional reflects the ACLU of Indiana’s mission to defend individual rights and preserve the liberties given in the Constitution. The organization champions the Bill of Rights, which it sees as ensuring the minority is not overridden by the majority.

The roadblock case, Falk said, illustrates that members of the minority group are always changing. As the caller realized, anyone can find themselves outside the majority at any time.

“I think it’s vital that people have a voice,” Falk said. “It’s not enough to say the Bill of Rights gives everybody a voice. You have to actively pursue that voice.”

This year marks the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the ACLU of Indiana. The organization was embroiled in controversy at its founding and continues to draw a leery, sometimes angry, response from the public. However, the group maintains that it fights solely for the rights and protections provided in the U.S. and Indiana constitutions.

Although over its history the nonprofit has fought on behalf of seemingly opposing groups – like abortion rights and right to life – the common thread is the threat to the Bill of Rights.

“We see ourselves as playing an important role in American democracy,” ACLU of Indiana Executive Director Jane Henegar said.

aclu timeline“We need to tell people over and over again why we do it,” she said, referring to defending the Constitution. The more people understand why the ACLU of Indiana asks questions, “the more they understand democracy, the better citizens they are, and that benefits everybody.”

Different day, same battle

At the center of many constitutional battles between the ACLU of Indiana and the state and federal governments has been Indianapolis attorney Lawrence Reuben.

Through his work with the organization, Reuben has represented the Ku Klux Klan, the Nazis, and Muslim and Jewish prisoners. He did not always share his clients’ beliefs, but he still fought to protect their right to have those beliefs.

Reuben started practicing in the early 1970s when the protests were raging over Vietnam and the overreach of the Nixon administration was coming to light. He cannot single out a reason for why he became involved with the ACLU of Indiana other than to explain that he has always been interested in “that little piece of paper that Madison and Jefferson and the boys sat in a room in Philadelphia and wrote.”

Continual violations and infringements on rights are not evidence that the ACLU of Indiana has had little impact, Henegar said. Rather the ongoing defense of civil liberties is reflective of a vibrant democracy.

Government is always changing, she said. New public servants take office, new legislative bodies convene, new government agencies start operations, and everyday human beings apply constitutional principles to the circumstances in which they find themselves.

Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller has been opposing counsel in several ACLU legal actions. He echoed Henegar in saying that the judicial branch functions properly when both sides are well represented.

“I never complain about individuals or various groups exercising their right to file legal challenges against state statutes they disagree with,” he said. “… Legal challenges are an important safeguard built in to the system to protect against all levels of government exceeding their bounds.”

Pointing to recent headlines about the federal government’s covert surveillance program of cell phones, Reuben sees the founding principles being trampled. Although he believes the actions have put the survival of the republic in jeopardy, he maintains the situation would have been worse if the ACLU had not fought earlier battles over free speech and privacy.

“I think we’d be in deeper doo-doo than we are now,” he said, “and we are in some serious trouble.”

‘Weakest and least powerful’

Henry Price was a young litigator in Indianapolis when he attended a city council meeting in the late 1960s to argue against a pending ordinance barring the production of the musical “Hair.”

As he was waiting for his two minutes to speak, a young African-American man addressed the council, explaining he wanted to file a complaint of police brutality. No city agency would listen to him, he said, so he was appealing to the council.

The alleged beating was part of a larger incident in an African-American neighborhood where police arrested 130 individuals. During the melee, the young man said law enforcement took him behind a mattress factory and beat him.

The members of the council replied they could not help him because they did not have jurisdiction over the police department.

Switching from being a private attorney to being an ACLU attorney, Price told the council it was not a question of jurisdiction but of political will. He then convinced the council to appoint a committee on the matter and hold a hearing.

For three days, he brought witness after witness to testify what had happened that night until a judge enjoined the proceedings. However, by that time, all the charges had been dropped except for one misdemeanor.

“People who have their rights violated,” Price said, “are often the weakest and least powerful.”

In the roadblock case, the least powerful were the drivers being pulled over.

The cert petition for Indianapolis v. Edmonds was pending before the U.S. Supreme Court when Scott Chinn started his new job as the city’s corporation counsel in 2000. Having spent much of his career working in government, Chinn had tangled with the ACLU of Indiana at every level of state and federal courts.

The justices took the case and in a 6-3 ruling found for Edmonds. Even though in the past the court had favored suspicionless searches to stop drunk driving or illegal immigration, it concluded Indianapolis had carried the practice too far.

Thirteen years later, Chinn, now a partner at Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, can readily recall the details of that case, the precedents and the nuances of the ruling. He does not harbor resentment over the case but instead applauds the legacy of the ACLU.

“I like it best when my government clients appreciate that part of the checks and balances that we need to have in government, in our democracy, is realizing the need to have a strong advocate for civil liberties to challenge government actions,” Chinn said.

The photograph of the overpass in Falk’s office does not indicate he considers this the most significant case he has handled. Indeed, a weary smile spread across his face when asked which cases in his nearly 20 years at the ACLU of Indiana have been the most important.

Some cases are lost, some cases are won, Falk said, but there’s always another case.•

ADVERTISEMENT

  • ADA Title Two lawsuit
    Good morning, I am Don Oberloh and am a party in a civil rights discrimination lawsuit with our city of Mishawaka. For three years I have been unsuccessful in achieving any dialogue with the City Council, the last two Mayors, or the City Attorney. I was told via e-mail by then city attorney, Cory Hamel, that if I did not stop contacting City Employees the would prosecute me. When the city refused to provide accommodations to city hall Meeting because of multiple architectural barriers, than would not do the same at my place of polling, which is in our city and owned by the city, I felt compelled to take the city to court and hopefully have the Jude compel them to start making all new construction compliant and develop a doable transition plan for the barriers they constructed with Federal funds for the last 22 years. I have been lied to by the cities hired law firm, the attorney fraudulently lied to the court and the court will not allow me to speak I their over sites at two hearing during the discovery period. I have not been able to afford an attorney, and after speaking to six different ones I had no luck with them getting paid at the end of a successful trial. I in need of legal council or at the least some guidance on the proper method to respectfully request the court review its decent oversight and withdraw a sanction and withdraw a protection order allowing the city to not answer interrogatories. I am not sure if Fed R Civ P rule 60 is the proper one to file it under. Please help, if I don't convince our city to stop taking federal funds and ignoring their legal obligations our city will be in for some tough economic times when the piper comes calling, and those with mobility disabilities such as myself lose out in participating in our city's services and programs. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely Don Oberloh

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I like the concept. Seems like a good idea and really inexpensive to manage.

  2. I don't agree that this is an extreme case. There are more of these people than you realize - people that are vindictive and/or with psychological issues have clogged the system with baseless suits that are costly to the defendant and to taxpayers. Restricting repeat offenders from further abusing the system is not akin to restricting their freedon, but to protecting their victims, and the court system, from allowing them unfettered access. From the Supreme Court opinion "he has burdened the opposing party and the courts of this state at every level with massive, confusing, disorganized, defective, repetitive, and often meritless filings."

  3. So, if you cry wolf one too many times courts may "restrict" your ability to pursue legal action? Also, why is document production equated with wealth? Anyone can "produce probably tens of thousands of pages of filings" if they have a public library card. I understand this is an extreme case, but our Supreme Court really got this one wrong.

  4. He called our nation a nation of cowards because we didn't want to talk about race. That was a cheap shot coming from the top cop. The man who decides who gets the federal government indicts. Wow. Not a gentleman if that is the measure. More importantly, this insult delivered as we all understand, to white people-- without him or anybody needing to explain that is precisely what he meant-- but this is an insult to timid white persons who fear the government and don't want to say anything about race for fear of being accused a racist. With all the legal heat that can come down on somebody if they say something which can be construed by a prosecutor like Mr Holder as racist, is it any wonder white people-- that's who he meant obviously-- is there any surprise that white people don't want to talk about race? And as lawyers we have even less freedom lest our remarks be considered violations of the rules. Mr Holder also demonstrated his bias by publically visiting with the family of the young man who was killed by a police offering in the line of duty, which was a very strong indicator of bias agains the offer who is under investigation, and was a failure to lead properly by letting his investigators do their job without him predetermining the proper outcome. He also has potentially biased the jury pool. All in all this worsens race relations by feeding into the perception shared by whites as well as blacks that justice will not be impartial. I will say this much, I do not blame Obama for all of HOlder's missteps. Obama has done a lot of things to stay above the fray and try and be a leader for all Americans. Maybe he should have reigned Holder in some but Obama's got his hands full with other problelms. Oh did I mention HOlder is a bank crony who will probably get a job in a silkstocking law firm working for millions of bucks a year defending bankers whom he didn't have the integrity or courage to hold to account for their acts of fraud on the United States, other financial institutions, and the people. His tenure will be regarded by history as a failure of leadership at one of the most important jobs in our nation. Finally and most importantly besides him insulting the public and letting off the big financial cheats, he has been at the forefront of over-prosecuting the secrecy laws to punish whistleblowers and chill free speech. What has Holder done to vindicate the rights of privacy of the American public against the illegal snooping of the NSA? He could have charged NSA personnel with violations of law for their warrantless wiretapping which has been done millions of times and instead he did not persecute a single soul. That is a defalcation of historical proportions and it signals to the public that the government DOJ under him was not willing to do a damn thing to protect the public against the rapid growth of the illegal surveillance state. Who else could have done this? Nobody. And for that omission Obama deserves the blame too. Here were are sliding into a police state and Eric Holder made it go all the faster.

  5. JOE CLAYPOOL candidate for Superior Court in Harrison County - Indiana This candidate is misleading voters to think he is a Judge by putting Elect Judge Joe Claypool on his campaign literature. paragraphs 2 and 9 below clearly indicate this injustice to voting public to gain employment. What can we do? Indiana Code - Section 35-43-5-3: Deception (a) A person who: (1) being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution, knowingly or intentionally receives or permits the receipt of a deposit or other investment, knowing that the institution is insolvent; (2) knowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property, employment, or an educational opportunity; (3) misapplies entrusted property, property of a governmental entity, or property of a credit institution in a manner that the person knows is unlawful or that the person knows involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to either the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted; (4) knowingly or intentionally, in the regular course of business, either: (A) uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or other device for falsely determining or recording the quality or quantity of any commodity; or (B) sells, offers, or displays for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity; (5) with intent to defraud another person furnishing electricity, gas, water, telecommunication, or any other utility service, avoids a lawful charge for that service by scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service; (6) with intent to defraud, misrepresents the identity of the person or another person or the identity or quality of property; (7) with intent to defraud an owner of a coin machine, deposits a slug in that machine; (8) with intent to enable the person or another person to deposit a slug in a coin machine, makes, possesses, or disposes of a slug; (9) disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment;

ADVERTISEMENT