ILNews

Asset forfeiture dispute divides appeals panel

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An order transferring to the federal government money seized from a criminal defendant was deemed proper by the Indiana Court of Appeals Thursday, though a dissenting judge said the defendant didn’t even know the order had been issued until nearly two years later.

The majority reversed a Clark Circuit Court ruling that set aside an order to transfer to the Drug Enforcement Administration $8,765 seized in a drugs and weapons prosecution. The order was signed by the judge in Clark Division One Circuit Court though the motion was filed in Division Three.

"The Division One Circuit Court subsequently granted Downey’s motion and issued an order instructing the State to release the funds to Downey or his designee. The Division One Circuit Court issued this order over the State’s objection that the Division One Circuit Court did not have the authority to set aside the order of a different court of equal jurisdiction," Judge Cale Bradford wrote in the majority opinion joined by Judge Patricia Riley.

“In light of the long-standing rule that one court cannot control the orders or process of any other court of equal jurisdiction, we conclude that the Division One Circuit Court abused its discretion in setting aside the order,” Bradford wrote in State of Indiana v. Chase R. Downey, 10A01-1310-CR-432.

The majority also accepted the state’s alternative argument that Downey’s request for return of the money was moot because the state has transferred it to the feds. “While it may seem bothersome that the State may divest itself of the funds by transferring them to someone other than the defendant and now argue that the issue is moot, we must recognize that the federal government is a separate governmental entity and is not a party to this action. As such, we conclude that Downey’s request for the funds is moot as the State cannot produce the funds that it does not possess,” Bradford wrote.

Judge Margret Robb picked apart all of the majority’s holdings and pointed out that while Downey was charged in one court, the motion and proposed order were assigned to a different court and signed by a judge in a third court.
    
At the time Downey was charged in 2011, Clark County had one Circuit Court and three Superior courts. The General Assembly reorganized the system into four Circuit courts in 2012.

“Division One granted Downey’s motion for release of property and also granted his subsequent motion to compel release of property. At that time, neither Downey nor Division One had any knowledge of the transfer order that had been issued over a year before. In April of 2013, Downey filed a motion for rule to show cause because the State had not complied with Division One’s orders regarding the funds. It was not until shortly before a hearing on that motion in June of 2013 that Downey’s defense counsel, with the aid of the deputy prosecuting attorney, was able to track down the transfer order and learn that the funds had been transferred to the federal government pursuant to an order issued nearly two years earlier,” Robb wrote.

“I do not believe Division One abused its discretion in setting aside the order of Division Three,” she wrote. “If one court cannot control the processes of any other court of equal jurisdiction, then neither the (former) Superior Three court nor the (former) Superior One judge should have been issuing orders affecting a Circuit Court case.

“Likewise,” she wrote, “I do not agree with the majority that Downey’s request is moot. The money still exists even if it is no longer in the State’s immediate possession. That the State may need to recover it from the federal government or take other action to provide the relief the court ordered does not make this issue moot.”
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Looking forward to new legislation
    I am looking forward to Congress considering the bill submitted by Rand Paul that would restrict these asset forfeitures.

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT