ILNews

Court orders damages to Lake County in bail bond case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Court of Appeals has remanded a bail bond case it considers filed in bad faith, with instructions that the trial court judge calculate damages for the Lake County sheriff, Superior Court Clerk, and the Criminal Justice Section of the Lake County Bar Association.

In Smith and Zacek v. Lake County, et al., the appellate court ruled today that the two bail bondsmen filed a complaint in 1999 alleging that bail statutes included in the Indiana Code were unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause and Privileges and Immunities Clause of the state constitution, in that "when a defendant fails to appear, bail agents are subject to forfeiture and late surrender fees while defendants who post 10 percent cash bonds are not."

The following year, a judge entered an order declaring Indiana Code Section 35-33-8-3.2 unconstitutional and enjoined the defendants from allowing bail for any criminal defendants pursuant to that statute. The Lake County Bar Association entered as amicus curiae and later as a defendant, and the county appealed to the Indiana Supreme Court. The high court reversed the trial court decision and ruled the state ;s bail scheme doesn ;t violate the constitution. After further appeals, the case was ultimately remanded to a special judge, who entered final summary judgment in favor of the county on the basis of res judicata.

In this latest appeal, the Court of Appeals cites Smith ;s history of filing suits relating to bail bonds: "When viewed in the context of Smith ;s well-documented history of piecemeal attacks on Indiana ;s bail scheme, however, the instant appeal may fairly be calculated as harassing and vexatious. We therefore remand for a calculation of damages, including appellate attorneys ; fees, to which Appellees may be entitled in accordance with Appellate Rule 66(E)."

Read the full opinion at Herbert Smith, Jr. and Charles Zacek v. Lake Co., Lake Co. Sheriff, and Clerk of Lake Superior Court.
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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT