Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department v. Donald Prout - 4/10/14

Back to TopPrintE-mail
Thursday  April 10, 2014 
11:30 AM  EST

11:30 a.m. 49A04-1305-CR-236. Indiana University South Bend. In April 2012, Donald A. Prout was arrested and charged with four counts of class D felony theft based on evidence that he engaged in ghost employment with the Marion County Sheriff’s Department on four occasions.  The State alleged that Prout clocked in at the Sheriff’s Department and his part-time security job at the same time, and thus he received double pay for those hours reported to both entities.  Prout pleaded not guilty on all counts.  In September 2012, the State dismissed all charges against Prout, citing “Evidentiary Problems.”  In December 2012, Prout filed a verified petition for expungement of his arrest records pursuant to Indiana Code Section 35-38-5-1, asserting that expungement was appropriate because no offense had been committed and there was an absence of probable cause.  The trial court granted Prout’s petition.
On appeal, the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department (“IMPD”) argues that the trial court abused its discretion in granting Prout’s petition for expungement because probable cause existed both at the time of Prout’s arrest and at the time the charges were dismissed.  The parties argue about which time in the proceedings – at arrest or at dismissal – that probable cause is required under Indiana Code Section 35-38-5-1.  IMPD also asserts that Prout did not prove that he did not commit theft, which was his burden in the expungement proceedings.  Prout asserts that IMPD’s arguments are requests for this Court to reweigh the evidence and judge the credibility of witnesses.

Back to Events
Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT