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. 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?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT