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. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. 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!

  4. 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.

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

ADVERTISEMENT