ILNews

Clark County drug court gets conditional approval

Dave Stafford
March 26, 2014
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Clark County Drug Treatment Court participants will continue with programs diverting their criminal cases in favor of treatment, but it’s uncertain whether the troubled program may ever again serve people arrested on nonviolent drug charges.

The Indiana Judicial Center in February took the unprecedented step of suspending one of its certified problem-solving courts. The move came after multiple people were jailed for months without due process and allegations surfaced that drug court staff had made unauthorized arrests or searches of drug court participants.

The caseloads for the court’s approximately 70 participants have been transferred from Clark Circuit 2 Judge Jerry Jacobi to Clark Circuit 4 Judge Vicki Carmichael.

“The participants in the program are still under court orders to do certain things,” said Indiana Supreme Court outreach coordinator Sarah Kidwell. “They’re also still being supervised by case managers.”

Earlier this month, Judicial Center Executive Director Jane Seigel notified Carmichael of the conditions for the court’s continued operations. It cannot accept new participants but has the authority to accept new cases of anyone currently in the program.

Carmichael is to oversee drug court operations and preside over sessions and direct case managers. Additional conditions include:

• A representative of the Clark County prosecutor’s office must attend and participate in weekly team meetings and court sessions.

• A member of the defense bar will serve as an advocate for the legal interests of participants at drug court sessions, and Carmichael will advise each participant of his/her right to legal representation during drug court participation.

• The Judicial Center will review the drug court certification that could include interviews with staff, participants, team members; observation of court sessions and reviews of case management and court files.

• The court’s policies and procedures may be revised to conform with I.C. 33-23-16 governing problem-solving courts.

Kidwell said the Supreme Court, Judicial Center and Clark County court officials are working together, but no plan is yet in place that would lift the drug court suspension. “Any particulars of moving forward are being carefully considered,” she said.

Eight former drug court participants sued Jacobi, various county officials and drug court staff members Feb. 28 and seek to establish a class action in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, New Albany. The suit, Destiny Hoffman, et al. v. Judge Jerome Jacobi, et al., 4:14-CV-00012, alleges civil rights violations of plaintiffs who said they were subjected to improper detentions, some lasting several months, and other alleged due process violations.

Two Clark County drug court staff members – former director Susan Knoebel, who was fired by Jacobi, and Jeremy Snelling – are named among defendants in the civil suit and have demanded a jury trial.

In the meantime, no disciplinary action related to the drug court had been initiated against Jacobi by the Judicial Qualifications Commission as of March 21. Kidwell said she could not comment about whether any complaints had been received.•

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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT