A gaming agent of the Indiana Gaming Commission constitutes a “law enforcement officer” for purposes of the offense
of resisting law enforcement, the Indiana Court of Appeals decided today.
In William
B. Jones v. State of Indiana, No. 73A01-0911-CR-532, William Jones argued he couldn’t be convicted of resisting
law enforcement because the person he resisted was a gaming agent of the Gaming Commission. Jones was at a casino in Shelbyville
when he got into an altercation. Gaming Agent Bradley Onskt identified himself as a police officer and inquired about the
altercation. Jones continued to yell and resisted arrest by jerking away from Onskt, continuing to struggle after being handcuffed,
and bumping into patrons.
Indiana statute says for purposes of riverboat gambling, a law enforcement agency includes gaming agents of the Indiana Gaming
Commission, and gaming agents are vested with full police powers and duties to enforce Indiana Code Article 4-33.
“The plain language of Indiana Code Article 4-33 states unambiguously the General Assembly’s intent that gaming
agents exercise full police power, including the power to arrest suspected offenders,” wrote Judge L. Mark Bailey. “It
would be absurd to expect gaming agents to do so without the deterrence provided by the Resisting Law Enforcement statute.”














Never heard of remand to another state. How often does that happen?
I highly recommend Deanna and her team of professionals that serve the legal community. Great information and many thanks for sharing.
they are pushing these cases against lawyers too far. thought-crime.
vagueness cannot challenged, so let's write all laws vaguely and throw the constitution out the window.Even if the court is operating under a particular law, if they don't it they will change it to their liking. What a joke!!!
Two convictions becomes one conviction with exactly the same sentence, only it is not clear wheter or not that sentence will be 18 months, 120 months or 138 months. Actually if the guns were in a home, whether or not they were his, he is protected under the 2nd amendment. Jurors need to learn the law and the constitution before judging others. The cour5ts need to do this as well.