ILNews

Judges affirm expungement of sheriff deputy’s arrest

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals upheld a trial court’s decision to grant a sheriff deputy’s petition for expungement of his arrest record dealing with four counts of Class D felony theft. His employer argued that he received pay from the police force while working at other jobs.

Marion County Sheriff’s Deputy Donald A. Prout worked full time with the sheriff’s office and also worked security part time at a Kroger store and a bus station. A Marion County Sheriff’s Office detective was asked to investigate accusations that Prout was being paid by MCSO while he was working his other jobs. The detective obtained documents from MCSO and Prout’s other employers indicating that his work schedules overlapped on four occasions – Oct. 27, 2011, and Feb. 6, 7 and 27, 2012. Prout was asked to explain the discrepancies, but he refused. The detective filed a probable cause affidavit, which resulted in Prout being charged with four counts of Class D felony theft. Those charges were later dismissed due to unspecified evidentiary problems.

Prout then petitioned to have his arrest record expunged, which the trial court granted. The judge found no offense was actually committed and there was an absence of probable cause to support the filing of the theft charges. The Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department, which pays Prout for his work as a sheriff’s deputy, appealed.

Prout had explained at the expungement hearing that his bus station job would allow him to leave his shift early in order to work his normal 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. shift. One of the days in question, his time card shows he worked his normal shift in question, but he was actually at a police training session from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. Prout admitted that his time card indicated he worked his normal shift time, which resulted in a shift differential pay of $0.70 an hour, so he was overpaid that day by $5.60.

In Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department v. Donald A. Prout, 49A04-1305-CR-236, the IMPD argued that Prout failed to carry his burden that no offense was committed, pointing to Prout’s acknowledgment that he was overpaid on that one day. But the theft charges were based on not working at all on that day, not that he was overpaid, the appeals court pointed out.

The judges also declined to reweigh the evidence.
 

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. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  2. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

  3. No, Ron Drake is not running against incumbent Larry Bucshon. That’s totally wrong; and destructively misleading to say anything like that. All political candidates, including me in the 8th district, are facing voters, not incumbents. You should not firewall away any of voters’ options. We need them all now more than ever. Right? Y’all have for decades given the Ds and Rs free 24/7/365 coverage of taxpayer-supported promotion at the expense of all alternatives. That’s plenty of head-start, money-in-the-pocket advantage for parties and people that don’t need any more free immunities, powers, privileges and money denied all others. Now it’s time to play fair and let voters know that there are, in fact, options. Much, much better, and not-corrupt options. Liberty or Bust! Andy Horning Libertarian for IN08 USA House of Representatives Freedom, Indiana

  4. A great idea! There is absolutely no need to incarcerate HRC's so-called "super predators" now that they can be adequately supervised on the streets by the BLM czars.

  5. One of the only qualms I have with this article is in the first paragraph, that heroin use is especially dangerous because it is highly addictive. All opioids are highly addictive. It is why, after becoming addicted to pain medications prescribed by their doctors for various reasons, people resort to heroin. There is a much deeper issue at play, and no drug use should be taken lightly in this category.

ADVERTISEMENT