Some attorneys aren't sold on the proposed Marion County Criminal Justice Complex

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

project_facts.jpgWalk with security commander Maj. Royce Cole through the narrow cellblocks, past the iron bars holding inmates in Marion County Jail 1, and he’ll tell you what you’re not seeing.

“It doesn’t have the modern stuff newer jails have,” Cole said. What Marion County’s jails do have is duplication. There are five facilities housing county arrestees and inmates, several with their own food prep areas, medical facilities, laundries and other essentials.

In Jail 1, you also won’t see, but it exists, the inefficiency that comes from an antiquated holding facility designed so there’s no monitoring of cellblocks from a central location. That means deputies, every 15 minutes, walk through the cell blocks, checking. “It’s not direct supervision, which is what we want,” Cole said.

complex-jail-leak-15col.jpg A tunnel that predates Marion County Jail 1 (top) is still used to transport inmates to and from court at the City-County Building. Above, a jail corridor is flooded after the recent freeze burst water pipes. (IL Photos/ Eric Learned)

Those sorts of redundancies and inefficiencies, plus concerns for security at the jail and at the Indianapolis City-County Building – where defendants with court dates come into regular contact with the public – prompted city and county officials last month to announce a Criminal Justice Complex proposal that would bring courts, jails and other related functions under one very large roof.

Officials say the facility can be funded by savings without a tax increase. The complex would house juvenile and adult detention facilities, adding 1,000 beds to the current maximum population of 2,507. It also would be home to criminal courts; prosecutor, public defender and probation offices; and practically all related county criminal-justice offices.

Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard announced the plan, saying, “Marion County’s jail and court facilities are aging, inefficient and unsafe.” Sheriff John Layton said 70,000 inmates move through the City-County Building each year alongside victims, jurors and witnesses.

But for lawyers who practice in the City-County Building, unanswered questions about the plan are concerning, especially persistent speculation that the facility might be located on city-owned property near the Indianapolis International Airport on the far west side.

“I’m concerned about all the businesses that are dependent on the City-County Building – the City Market, the bail bondsmen, the lunch places over there,” said criminal defense attorney Andrew Borland, whose office is near the downtown building that houses the courts. He said he’d back a complex downtown, but doesn’t know if that’s in the cards.

On a recent day, Borland said he’d been to the City-County Building on business three times by 11 a.m. and expected to return a couple more times.

Borland said his office “would have to move wherever that building went. … 1,000 lawyers (could) make that same statement, and you start to see the economics of it. … It’s not a small thing.

“If they move that out to the airport, they’re going to have to build offices” for attorneys, bail bondsmen and the like, Borland said. “I’d have a hard time getting out there. I live in the city, my office is down here, and it would add an hour a day in the car for me.”complex-graphic.jpg

Kevin Murray, the sheriff’s counsel, said no decision has been made about the facility location, but the sheriff is open to considering various locations. “We’ll see what comes back” in proposals from developers, Murray said. “One of the big issues will be venue.

“We think consolidation makes sense, and we think that we’ll save some money,” he said, adding the complex won’t move forward without popular buy-in.

Murray said the proposal is an outgrowth of long collaboration with numerous criminal justice agencies, judges, prosecutors, public defenders and others that identified problems and worked on solutions going back to federal jail overcrowding lawsuits against former sheriffs. Murray notes the Marion County Jail went from federal oversight to correctional accreditation in just a few years.

But the current handling of arrestees is a “Rube Goldberg” system, he said. They’re brought to an arrestee processing center separate from the jail, where they may linger for hours before being taken to jail or court.

What Marion County is proposing, Murray said, would be unique in the nation and would build on the collaborative momentum that’s helped drive down the daily jail population to an average daily count of 495 below maximum.

There has been no estimate of the complex’s cost. Savings that would fund the project would come from a reduced force of deputies guarding and transporting inmates, savings on office leases, and elimination of duplicated services, among other things.

Marion County Prosecutor Terry Curry’s office would move from rented space a block from the City-County Building to the proposed complex, as would probation offices, community corrections and other offices.

“This is an idea that’s been discussed for years now and clearly is something that needs to be addressed, and I’m 100 percent on board with the idea of a justice center” combining various functions, Curry said. “We have some concerns about the ultimate site. Like the judges, we have a significant interest in making sure any facility is easily accessible to everyone in the county.”

Curry notes many people come to the prosecutor’s office to lodge complaints, so an accessible location is critical. Some judges also have said the location of a complex would have to be such that courts are accessible to defendants and witnesses.

Accessibility concerns David Deal, too. An attorney with Voyles Zahn & Paul near the City-County Building, Deal’s practice is divided between criminal and civil law. Because civil courts will remain in the City-County Building, he’s looking at the prospect of having to juggle appearances in two courthouses if the complex is built.

“I’d become a lot more in favor of it if they keep it in the core of the city for access for litigants and also for access for attorneys,” Deal said.

He also worries that attorneys with long leases to fulfill near the building could be in a fix if courts move far from their current location. “If you recently renewed a five- or 10-year lease, you’re going to be in tough condition.”

If a complex were built far away from downtown, it could lead to an exodus from offices near the City-County Building, Deal said. “I think that could hurt downtown Indianapolis.”

Officials who announced the complex noted it could free up prime downtown real estate that could give the city an economic boost. Jail 1 at 40 S. Alabama St., and Jail 2 at 730 E. Washington St., sit on property valued at more than $17 million, officials said.

Borland believes the complex belongs in the mile square of downtown Indianapolis. “I just can’t imagine taking it out of the downtown core is going to be helpful to the litigants in those cases,” he said. “Those are, for the most part, the poor people in our community. … Going 10 miles further is a big deal to them.•


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?