ILNews

Bills on courts, forfeiture before governor

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Several Indiana counties will have their Circuit and Superior courts unified and certain judges will no longer have to be less than 70 years old when they take office, thanks to legislation passed during the 2011 session of the General Assembly.

House Enrolled Act 1266 originally intended to create a unified Clark Circuit court, but it became a more expansive bill dealing with court issues as the session progressed. The legislation that passed establishes unified Circuit courts in Clark County – beginning Jan. 1, 2012 – and in Madison and Henry counties, effective July 1, 2011.

HEA 1266 also dictates that Lake Superior County judges are chosen by a nominating commission instead of through elections. The judges appointed by the governor will be up for retention every six years.

buck-jim-mug Buck

The bill ends the age restriction on those who run for Superior and County judicial office. This language is also in Senate Enrolled Act 463, authored by Sen. Jim Buck, R-Kokomo. He said the same language was added into HEA 1266 to try to ensure its survival after the House Democrats walk-out in February.

Buck said no particular judge was the catalyst for the bill, but he heard from several staff members of Superior judges who were concerned about the age limit. He noted that people are living longer these days and the statutes need to reflect this.

“It’s a shame to waste the wisdom and experience these older judges have just because of an arbitrary and out-of-date age limit,” Buck wrote in an email to Indiana Lawyer. “Our Indiana Constitution does not place age restrictions on circuit court judges, so it’s unfair to subject superior court judges to them.”

House Enrolled Act 1153 expands who may participate in problem-solving court programs, when and how to end someone’s participation, and also makes parents and guardians financially responsible for certain fees and expenses assessed against the juvenile involved in problem-solving court programs. HEA 1153 also includes details on the Criminal Law and Sentencing Policy Study Committee.

The budget bill passed by legislators in the waning days of the session included a change to the automated record-keeping fee. Senate Bill 301 originally called for increasing the fee which would help pay for the Judicial Technology and Automation Committee’s implementation of a statewide case-management system and other applications, but that bill did not gain legislative approval. The language that was inserted into the budget bill calls for the current $7 fee to be reduced to $5 after June 30, 2011.

Mary DePrez, director and counsel of trial court technology for JTAC, sees the end result as a positive for the Indiana Supreme Court-supported effort. The fee was scheduled to drop to $4 July 1, so now JTAC will receive an extra dollar with no end date specified. Clerks in counties that don’t use Odyssey will be able to retain $1 of the automated record-keeping fee.

Since SB 301 didn’t pass with the larger fee increases, DePrez said JTAC won’t be able to implement Odyssey as quickly as hoped, but the committee is looking for federal dollars that could speed up the process of getting the system into more courts.

“The court recognizes that these are difficult and challenging financial times for all Hoosiers, and the Legislature is tasked with making critical and difficult decisions, so we are grateful they recognized the importance of what we are doing for the courts, clerks, law enforcement, and probation departments, and I believe that the increase in the fee to $5 is in recognition of that,” she said.

This legislative session also brought changes to how funds from civil forfeiture cases stemming from criminal acts are disbursed to the school common fund, law enforcement, and prosecutors. The law currently allows for police and prosecutors to seize the proceeds of the crime from the offender and file a forfeiture action to use those proceeds to fund law enforcement and prosecutorial efforts, but there were no guidelines or uniformity in distribution around the state.

dePrez-mary-mug DePrez

Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller encouraged legislators to establish a formula on how those funds should be distributed. In August 2010, a lawsuit was filed claiming prosecutors have violated the statute that directs money from civil forfeitures to the Indiana Common School Fund. That suit was dismissed in April.

SEA 215 requires money generated in the forfeiture cases to be divided among prosecuting attorneys, law enforcement, and schools. One-third of the proceeds would go to prosecutors; of the remaining dollars, 15 percent would go to the common school fund, and 85 percent would go to an account for law enforcement agencies involved in the seizure for necessary expenses.

On the day it was enacted by the General Assembly, author Sen. Richard Bray, R-Martinsville, said, “This legislation recognizes there are legal costs as well as police agency expenses in prosecuting a forfeiture case and obtaining the funds generated. A top priority in setting the calculation was to cover these expenses, while keeping in mind ways we can help our schools with the money as well.”

The legislation requires the court handling a forfeiture case to notify the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute of the amount and manner of the forfeiture distribution.

The governor has received SEA 215, SEA 463, HEA 1153, and HEA 1266, but had not signed them as of Indiana Lawyer deadline. He has until May 11 to sign HEA 1266, May 12 to sign SEA 463, and May 13 to sign SEA 215 and HEA 1153.

The governor has already signed several other bills including: HEA 1215, which allows for a protected person to attend a hearing through the use of closed-circuit television; and SEA 495, which prohibits a school corporation from using money received from the state to bring or join an action against the state. The law does allow for using state money if the school is challenging an adverse decision by a state agency, board, or commission.

Zoeller supported this legislation, believing non-state dollars should be used to fund these lawsuits. The AG is currently defending the school funding formula in a suit filed by three school corporations – Hamilton Southeastern Schools in Hamilton County, Franklin Township Community Schools in Marion County, and Middleburry Community Schools in Elkhart County. The case is currently before the Indiana Supreme Court pursuant to Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure 56(A).•
 

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. Hmmmmm ..... How does the good doctor's spells work on tyrants and unelected bureacrats with nearly unchecked power employing in closed hearings employing ad hoc procedures? Just askin'. ... Happy independence day to any and all out there who are "free" ... Unlike me.

  2. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  3. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  4. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  5. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

ADVERTISEMENT