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. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT