ILNews

AG's involvement questioned in prosecutor forfeiture suit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Attorney General’s Office plans to “zealously defend” 78 prosecutors being sued over civil forfeiture collection practices, meaning the state courts will likely have to analyze not only the merits of that issue but also whether two separate state statutes restrict how Indiana’s top attorney can intervene in this taxpayer-filed qui tam lawsuit.

Indianapolis plaintiff’s attorney Paul Ogden filed the suit in Marion Superior Court on Aug. 12, but the case was just unsealed late last week after a mandatory 120-day waiting period.

At issue is the filing of civil forfeiture suits against the property of drug offenders or other criminals. Under Indiana law, prosecutors can seek to seize the proceeds of crime and use those proceeds to fund law enforcement efforts. The courts will likely have to ultimately determine what the term “law enforcement costs” means and how that is applied within each jurisdiction, a definition that each locality has found to encompass different things.

The plaintiff in this suit claims prosecutors have violated a state statute that directs any money from civil forfeitures exceeding law enforcement costs to be transferred to the Indiana Common School Fund. Media reports have analyzed the variances in how this money is handled throughout the state, and this very issue sparked misconduct accusations against Delaware County Prosecutor Mark McKinney. A disciplinary action currently is pending before the Indiana Supreme Court.

But before the merits of the forfeiture law are examined, the parties are expected to argue over procedural aspects such as how the AG’s Office is involved in this case.

One statute allows the attorney general to defend the county prosecutors on the civil suit against them, while a different statute directs the AG to intervene on behalf of the plaintiffs suing over how seized assets should have been placed into a state school fund rather than being kept by local law enforcement for its forfeiture-related expenses.

Under Indiana Code 33-23-13-3, local prosecuting attorneys are designated as state judicial officers. The attorney general’s representation is triggered once a prosecutor asks for representation – either by the AG personally or by hiring private defense counsel on any civil action. But the False Claims Act, which Ogden's suit cites, allows a citizen plaintiff to bring a case he or she thinks could benefit other citizens, in hopes that the attorney general will take it over. Zoeller rejected that option Tuesday, characterizing the issue as a public policy dispute that could distract prosecutors from their public safety duties.

“Accusing prosecutors of intentionally violating the False Claims Act strikes me as unfair public criticism, when this disagreement over the calculation of money really is a dispute over the state’s public policy, not false claims,” Zoeller said. “The plaintiff (is) framing the lawsuit in a way to claim to be representing the state will not keep me from my duty to defend prosecutors in court against civil lawsuits. The proper place to argue that Indiana’s civil forfeiture law is too lax or too vague is the Indiana General Assembly, which can introduce and pass a bill to change the law. I would support legislative efforts to clarify the civil forfeiture law to provide more transparency and certainty, but that debate ought to happen in the Legislature, not in civil court.”

Disputing Zoeller’s intervention in this way, Ogden said the state should hire private counsel for the prosecutors being sued.

"The attorney general's office should not be in the business of helping other state officials violate the law," he said.

Addressing a concern about the differing state statute interpretations, the AG’s litigation spokesman Bryan Corbin said the office respectfully disagrees with Ogden’s assertions that the only choices were to either side with the plaintiff or stand mute.

“The public policy of the state envisions that the Attorney General represents prosecutors in such matters. We will argue this point in court and the court will decide,” he said.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • I Would Add
    I am not sure why someone in the Attorney General's Office hasn't taken a closer look at Indiana's qui tam statute. The law allows the AG to:

    1) Not intervene in the lawsuit if he so chooses.
    2) Intervene for the Plaintiff and ask that the case be dismissed. There is a procedure outlined for this option. It is in fact the ONLY way a qui tam can be dismissed.
    3) Intervene for the Plaintiff and try to settle the case.
    4) Intervene for the Plaintiff and litigate it to conclusion.

    Those are the options. The AG wants to pursue annother option - representing the defendant. I don't know of a single qui tam case in the country where the AG or U.S. Attorney started representing the Defendant against someone bringing the action for the government.

    It makes no sense to do so. The qui tam law mandates that the citizen bring the action "on behalf of the State of Indiana." That's why the law provides for the AG to intervene for the Plaintiff if he doesn't like it and ask that it be dismissed, on behalf of the State of Indiana. Otherwise you have the State on both sides of the lawsuit.

    Here's another thing. Once the AG refuses to intervene for the Plaintiff, the Inspector General can intevene for the Plaintiff. Thus, under the AG's approach in which he believes he can represent a qui tam defendant, you could have the Inspector General opposing the Attorney General, both representing the State.

    It's obvious once you look at all the qui tam provisions that the legislature never intended for the AG to be able to represent a qui tam defendant. Of course Attorney General Zoeller doesn't seem particularly concerned about what the General Assembly intended when it comes to his interpretation of the law.

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT