ILNews

COA affirms jail phone commissions

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
After years of litigation, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today that the Marion County Sheriff and the Indiana Department of Administration were allowed to enter into contracts with a phone company that provided commissions to the sheriff and IDOA on phone calls made from the jail and prison facilities.

In Chanelle Linet Alexander, et al. v. The Marion County Sheriff and the Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Administration, No. 49A02-0708-CV-716, the plaintiffs are a class of people who have been charged or paid for collect phone calls from inmates at the Marion County Jail and those incarcerated at Indiana Department of Correction facilities.

The suit was first filed in 2000, dismissed by the trial court for lack of subject jurisdiction, and appealed to the Court of Appeals. In Alexander I, the Court of Appeals remanded the case to the trial court to determine whether the sheriff and commissioner of IDOA were allowed to enter into contracts with Ameritech and AT&T that provided commissions and other compensation paid by the phone company to the sheriff and state, and if the rates charged for collect calls in the jail and DOC facilities were reasonable.

On remand, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the sheriff and IDOA, leading to the second appeal to the Court of Appeals by the plaintiffs.

In the instant case, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment. After examining Indiana statute, the appellate court found the defendants didn't violate any of the prohibition against excessive license fees, unreasonable user fees, or combinations in restraint of trade.

"Finding no statutory constraints on the Sheriff's or the State's authority to enter into contracts that call for the service providers to pay commissions to the Sheriff and the State in accordance with their respective contracts, and in light of the General Assembly's recognition of the Sheriff's and the State's authority to accept commissions from telephone service providers, we conclude that the trial court properly decided the threshold issue, i.e., the Sheriff and the State had the authority to enter into contracts which provided that they would receive commissions from providers of telephone services to their respective facilities," wrote Judge Ezra Friedlander.

The Court of Appeals also found that the defendants met their initial burden of proof showing the rates charged to inmates in the jail or DOC facilities were reasonable as they were no more than rates charged to the public for a similar service. The plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of establishing there is a genuine issue of fact regarding the reasonableness of the rates charged by the phone companies, he wrote.
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. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  2. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  3. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  4. Different rules for different folks....

  5. I would strongly suggest anyone seeking mediation check the experience of the mediator. There are retired judges who decide to become mediators. Their training and experience is in making rulings which is not the point of mediation.

ADVERTISEMENT