ILNews

Contempt affirmed for man suspected of drunken driving

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A man who authorities said refused to comply with a court-ordered blood draw for suspicion of drunken driving was rightfully found in contempt of court, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled Monday.

The panel affirmed an indirect contempt of court conviction under I.C. 34-47-3-3 in Jeffrey Metzger v. State of Indiana, 02A03-1307-CR-295. Metzger was arrested in December 2012 on suspicion of operating while intoxicated, but he refused a breath test, so Allen County officials obtained a warrant for a blood draw.

When authorities informed Metzger that a warrant had been obtained, the record says he grabbed a chair and began moving toward a deputy, who ordered Metzger to sit down. When he didn’t do so, the deputy took him to the ground and handcuffed him, according to the record.

The panel rejected Metzger’s claim that because the deputy intended to call off the blood draw before a nurse arrived that he did not willfully resist, hinder or delay the execution of the warrant.

“Based on Metzger’s uncooperative actions, it can be reasonably inferred that Metzger had no intent to comply with the trial court’s order to submit to a blood draw,” Judge Patricia Riley wrote for the panel.

“As Metzger’s act was clearly directed against the authority of the court and hindered the execution of the trial court’s warrant, the trial court properly held Metzger in contempt,” Riley wrote.
 
 
 

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. 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!

  2. 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.

  3. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

  4. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  5. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

ADVERTISEMENT