ILNews

Grants to bring improvements to Protective Order Registry

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Federal grants from the Department of Justice will allow for enhancements to Indiana’s Protective Order Registry, including alerting victims by e-mail or text when an order is about to expire.

Indiana Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard and Congressman Andre Carson made the announcement this morning at the Julian Center, an Indianapolis shelter for domestic violence victims. The $264,000 in grants from the DOJ will also allow for a text or e-mail alert to be sent to victims when a protective order is served; allow the courts to print protective and no-contact orders in English and Spanish; and create a public access website that will allow anyone to look up protective orders over the Internet.

The goal is to have these enhancements ready for use at the beginning of 2011.

Just last year, victim advocates were able to file a petition for a protective order over the Internet thanks to federal funds. It began as a pilot project in eight counties and now 295 advocates have the ability to file a petition for a protective order online.

There are more than 27,600 active protective orders and 41,200 active no-contact orders in the registry.

ADVERTISEMENT

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT