ILNews

Statehouse security means changes to after-hours filing

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
New security measures starting in two weeks at the Indiana Statehouse means the legal community will have to change their routines for after-hours filing.

Beginning June 4, north doors of the building will be locked at 5:30 p.m. and the Capitol Police desk at that entrance will not be staffed as it currently is. The Clerk of the Courts and Department of Administration is installing a drop box for filings to be placed, according to according to Supreme Court Administrator and Clerk of the Appellate Courts Kevin Smith.

That means those doing their "Rotunda filing" for the Indiana Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, and Tax Court will have to file briefs, motions, and other documents in a Post Office-style drop box on the building's east side, using an existing second-floor vestibule area.

An e-mail circulated to the legal community from Smith outlines the procedure:

· If possible, the filings should be placed in an envelope, bound by an alligator clip, or placed in an accordion folder wrapped by a rubber band. On top of the drop box will be a surface area that will include a pad of forms, time clock, pen, and stapler. The form must be filled out, time/date stamped by the time clock, and stapled to the inside of the original document being filed before being deposited in the drop box.

· The vestibule area is equipped with a security camera that will record all filings. When assembling your materials, note that dimensions of the drop box drawer are approximately 12 inches high by 17 inches wide by 19 inches deep.

Court officials view that as a short-term solution and are hoping for a long-term remedy on the first floor, west side of the building - which is supposed to be the eventual main public entrance to comply with the American Disability Act. There, court officials want a vestibule area constructed inside to allow for the Rotunda filing, Smith said.

Once security measures are implemented June 7, only two doors will be open during regular business hours for the general public. Both will have security and metal detectors, much like the current security structure at the federal courthouses. Court and state employees will have identification cards to access the other doors and underground tunnels running between Circle Centre Mall and the state government centers.
ADVERTISEMENT

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 gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT