ILNews

Commission discusses technology, hardship license

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Commission on Courts - the legislative interim study committee that considers issues instrumental in court operations - gathered Tuesday to hear about technological initiatives under way in the state courts and expanding the jurisdiction of courts issuing driver's licenses because of hardship.

Mary DePrez, director and counsel of trial court technology for the Supreme Court's Judicial Technology and Automation Committee, told the commission about new initiatives launched recently on a protective order registry and e-traffic citations, all of which will eventually tie into a statewide case management system being implemented in coming years. Monroe County courts and Washington Township's Small Claims Court in Marion County are the first participants and should be up and running by March 17, 2008. Five more counties will be selected to move forward at that time, Justice Frank Sullivan told commission members.

Still under discussion and consideration is how public access to the case management system will be handled, Justice Sullivan said. Attorneys will have access, but the JTAC committee will likely develop policy and make suggestions to the Indiana Supreme Court for consideration about how that public access will be implemented.

Commission members also heard a presentation about hardship licenses, which Dearborn Superior Judge G. Michael Witte said is a topic of discussion for judges across the state. Currently, only Circuit courts can hear these cases in the jurisdiction where the person lives, rather than the court where the license was suspended. Judge Witte proposes that Superior courts be allowed to handle these and that they be kept in the same courts considering the person's other driving-related issues.

Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard described this as a "very good idea" and said it would help organize these matters for efficiency. He proposed drafting language that would make it clear only Circuit and Superior courts have jurisdiction, not city or town courts.

No vote was taken, but lawmakers said they plan to do so at a coming meeting. The commission plans to meet next Oct. 1 to hear proposals about new courts and judicial officers. They also plan to discuss Indiana Trial Rule 60.5 that deals with mandate of funds, and the issue of allowing magistrates of the Vanderburgh Superior Court to enter final orders or judgments in small claims or protective-order cases.
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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT