ILNews

Eliminating judges’ mandatory retirement to get hearing

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A bill to eliminate mandatory retirement at age 75 for Indiana Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges will be heard in the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday.

Senate Bill 124 removes the language requiring retirement at 75 and makes no other changes. The bill would not apply to current members of the courts; Article 7, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution states: “Every such justice and judge shall retire at the age specified by statute in effect at the commencement of his current term.”

The committee also will hear:

  • Police text message searches: SB 156 would prohibit a police officer from taking information from a cell phone and retaining it as evidence pending trial for a violation of the law concerning typing, transmitting, or reading a text message while operating a motor vehicle without a warrant or probable cause to believe that the device was used to commit a crime;
  • Felon DNA database: SB 245 would require people arrested on a felony charge to submit a DNA sample for the Indiana DNA database. The bill provides for the expungement of a DNA sample for people cleared of felony charges;
  • Deputy AGs in D.C.: SB 36 would allow the attorney general to employ deputies in Washington, D.C., to monitor federal legislation and for other purposes; and
  • Judicial nominating: SB 103 would provide that the nonattorney members of the Judicial Nominating Commission be appointed by the governor from a list of recommended candidates submitted by House and Senate leaders of both parties. Those appointments currently are made by the governor alone. SB 103 also would reduce the time allowed a governor to appoint a Supreme Court justice or Court of Appeals judge from 60 days to 30 days.

The committee will meet at 9 a.m. Wednesday in Room 130 of the Statehouse.
 

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. For many years this young man was "family" being my cousin's son. Then he decided to ignore my existence and that of my daughter who was very hurt by his actions after growing up admiring, Jason. Glad he is doing well, as for his opinion, if you care so much you wouldn't ignore the feelings of those who cared so much about you for years, Jason.

  2. Good riddance to this dangerous activist judge

  3. What is the one thing the Hoosier legal status quo hates more than a whistleblower? A lawyer whistleblower taking on the system man to man. That must never be rewarded, must always, always, always be punished, lest the whole rotten tree be felled.

  4. I want to post this to keep this tread alive and hope more of David's former clients might come forward. In my case, this coward of a man represented me from June 2014 for a couple of months before I fired him. I knew something was wrong when he blatantly lied about what he had advised me in my contentious and unfortunate divorce trial. His impact on the proceedings cast a very long shadow and continues to impact me after a lengthy 19 month divorce. I would join a class action suit.

  5. The dispute in LB Indiana regarding lake front property rights is typical of most beach communities along our Great Lakes. Simply put, communication to non owners when visiting the lakefront would be beneficial. The Great Lakes are designated navigational waters (including shorelines). The high-water mark signifies the area one is able to navigate. This means you can walk, run, skip, etc. along the shores. You can't however loiter, camp, sunbath in front of someones property. Informational signs may be helpful to owners and visitors. Our Great Lakes are a treasure that should be enjoyed by all. PS We should all be concerned that the Long Beach, Indiana community is on septic systems.

ADVERTISEMENT