Robert E. Redington v. State of Indiana - 6/18/13

Back to TopPrintE-mail
Tuesday  June 18, 2013 
2:00 PM  EST

2 p.m. 53A01-1210-CR-461. Robert Redington was approached by members of the Bloomington Police Department while viewing a bar with a range finder from the third floor of a parking garage.  Redington informed the police that he was in possession of a firearm, and the police located two loaded handguns in his pockets.  Redington also was in possession of a loaded shotgun which was located in the trunk of his vehicle.  Redington made statements to the police officers regarding the investigation of Lauren Spierer’s disappearance, and the police asked him if he would be willing to come to the police station for an interview, and Redington complied.  Based upon Redington’s interactions with police, as well as the parking enforcement officer who alerted the police to his presence, Redington was transported to the IU Health Center in Bloomington for a mental evaluation.  The police also searched Redington’s home and seized 48 firearms.  The State filed a petition for a hearing to retain Redington’s seized firearms pursuant to Ind. Code Section 37-47-14 et seq., and, following the hearing, the court ordered that Bloomington Police retain the firearms.  On appeal, Redington challenges the sufficiency of the evidence presented to retain his firearms, asserts that Ind. Code Section 37-47-14 et seq. is unconstitutional on grounds that it, as applied, violates Article 1, Section 32 as well as Article 1, Section 21 of the Indiana Constitution, and the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and that Ind. Code § 35-47-14-1(a)(2), as applied, is unconstitutional because it is void for vagueness.

Back to Events
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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT