Maddox Macy v. State of Indiana - 4/30/14

Back to TopPrintE-mail
Wednesday  April 30, 2014 
1:00 PM  EST

1 p.m. 52A02-1309-CR-808. Lake County Government Complex Auditorium. On August 25, 2012, animal control officers in Miami County received a report that two dogs owned by Maddox Macy bit one of Macy’s neighbors.  The next morning, Officer Roger Bowland accompanied two animal control officers to Macy’s residence.  Macy was uncooperative.  Despite being asked to calm down, Macy was loud and demanded answers from the officers.  Officer Bowland threatened to arrest Macy if she did not calm down.
Officer Bowland then walked across the street to the bite victim’s house.  Macy followed down the sidewalk and began “making a scene.”  Officer Bowland arrested Macy and placed her in the front seat of his police car.  Macy opened the door of the car and continued to yell.  Officer Bowland forced Macy back into the car, but Macy refused to put her feet inside the door.  Officer Bowland had to pick up Macy’s feet and place them inside the car. Macy was convicted of disorderly conduct and resisting law enforcement.  Macy appeals her conviction for resisting law enforcement, arguing she did not forcibly resist.

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. 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!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT