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

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. 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?

  2. 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?

  3. 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.

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT