ILNews

Curry: 12-hour arrestee probable cause rule unrealistic

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Marion County Prosecutor Terry Curry told judges Tuesday that a proposed rule requiring a probable cause determination within 12 hours of an arrest in major felony cases would “set up the criminal justice system to fail in many instances.”

The proposed rule change recommended by Indianapolis criminal court judges is on hold for now.

Noting this past weekend’s multiple shooting in Broad Ripple and the slaying of Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department Officer Perry Renn, Curry said investigations of such matters shouldn’t be compromised by standards that would burden already strained law-enforcement resources.

“We just feel as a practical matter a 12-hour limit is unrealistic,” Curry told judges of the Marion Superior Executive Committee. “You only have to look back to the events of this past weekend.”

Marion Superior criminal judges have endorsed a 12-hour rule on the advice of counsel, and the committee called on Curry to explain his office’s opposition.

While the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld detention up to 48 hours before a probable cause determination, Marion Superior judges have been advised that detention of a suspect for more than 12 hours could give rise to a civil-rights case, because judges here are available 22 hours a day, seven days a week to make probable cause determinations at the Arrestee Processing Center.

Marion Superior Criminal Term chairwoman Judge Lisa Borges said there was misunderstanding about what judges were seeking. Rather than a full probable cause determination, she said judges want to make sure people weren’t being detained without explanation.

“There has to be a reason for locking them up. That’s what we’re looking for,” Borges said, noting a simple statement from the arresting officer in most cases would suffice. “All we need is a statement of reason for the arrest.”

Borges said those determinations are routinely made within 12 hours for people suspected of minor offenses such as public intoxication, but not in major crimes cases.

Curry disagreed that it was constitutionally necessary to determine probable cause sooner than 48 hours, and he said imposing a 12-hour rule would jeopardize sensitive and complex investigations, particularly in major crimes. “One size just does not fit all,” he said.

Judge James Osborn said the courts shouldn’t rush to effectuate a rule that could cause trouble for investigating officers and prosecutors. He and other judges suggested a 24-hour rule might be more workable.

“My only concern is, are we being too aggressive?” Osborne said. He cautioned that if the judges adopted a 12-hour rule, “We are basically defining our own liability.”

After lengthy discussion Tuesday, the committee tabled the proposal. Chairman Judge David Certo said he would draft a proposal in consultation with Curry and the criminal court judges to present to the committee later.

 
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

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