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

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 just wanted to point out that Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, Senator Feinstein, former Senate majority leader Bill Frist, and former attorney general John Ashcroft are responsible for this rubbish. We need to keep a eye on these corrupt, arrogant, and incompetent fools.

  2. Well I guess our politicians have decided to give these idiot federal prosecutors unlimited power. Now if I guy bounces a fifty-dollar check, the U.S. attorney can intentionally wait for twenty-five years or so and have the check swabbed for DNA and file charges. These power hungry federal prosecutors now have unlimited power to mess with people. we can thank Wisconsin's Jim Sensenbrenner and Diane Feinstein, John Achcroft and Bill Frist for this one. Way to go, idiots.

  3. I wonder if the USSR had electronic voting machines that changed the ballot after it was cast? Oh well, at least we have a free media serving as vicious watchdog and exposing all of the rot in the system! (Insert rimshot)

  4. Jose, you are assuming those in power do not wish to be totalitarian. My experience has convinced me otherwise. Constitutionalists are nearly as rare as hens teeth among the powerbrokers "managing" us for The Glorious State. Oh, and your point is dead on, el correcta mundo. Keep the Founders’ (1791 & 1851) vision alive, my friend, even if most all others, and especially the ruling junta, chase only power and money (i.e. mammon)

  5. Hypocrisy in high places, absolute immunity handed out like Halloween treats (it is the stuff of which tyranny is made) and the belief that government agents are above the constitutions and cannot be held responsible for mere citizen is killing, perhaps has killed, The Republic. And yet those same power drunk statists just reel on down the hallway toward bureaucratic fascism.

ADVERTISEMENT