ILNews

Commission discusses technology, hardship license

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Commission on Courts - the legislative interim study committee that considers issues instrumental in court operations - gathered Tuesday to hear about technological initiatives under way in the state courts and expanding the jurisdiction of courts issuing driver's licenses because of hardship.

Mary DePrez, director and counsel of trial court technology for the Supreme Court's Judicial Technology and Automation Committee, told the commission about new initiatives launched recently on a protective order registry and e-traffic citations, all of which will eventually tie into a statewide case management system being implemented in coming years. Monroe County courts and Washington Township's Small Claims Court in Marion County are the first participants and should be up and running by March 17, 2008. Five more counties will be selected to move forward at that time, Justice Frank Sullivan told commission members.

Still under discussion and consideration is how public access to the case management system will be handled, Justice Sullivan said. Attorneys will have access, but the JTAC committee will likely develop policy and make suggestions to the Indiana Supreme Court for consideration about how that public access will be implemented.

Commission members also heard a presentation about hardship licenses, which Dearborn Superior Judge G. Michael Witte said is a topic of discussion for judges across the state. Currently, only Circuit courts can hear these cases in the jurisdiction where the person lives, rather than the court where the license was suspended. Judge Witte proposes that Superior courts be allowed to handle these and that they be kept in the same courts considering the person's other driving-related issues.

Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard described this as a "very good idea" and said it would help organize these matters for efficiency. He proposed drafting language that would make it clear only Circuit and Superior courts have jurisdiction, not city or town courts.

No vote was taken, but lawmakers said they plan to do so at a coming meeting. The commission plans to meet next Oct. 1 to hear proposals about new courts and judicial officers. They also plan to discuss Indiana Trial Rule 60.5 that deals with mandate of funds, and the issue of allowing magistrates of the Vanderburgh Superior Court to enter final orders or judgments in small claims or protective-order cases.
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

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. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

  2. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  3. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  4. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  5. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

ADVERTISEMENT