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.


  • 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

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?