ILNews

IBA: Online Protective Orders

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In the past, victims of domestic violence might find themselves standing in line at the clerk’s office waiting to file a petition, and in the midst of all the other public business happening there, would then have to explain intimate details about the situation to get the petition completed. This changed when Indiana launched its online system to petition for protection orders. For some time now those seeking assistance may do so in the security and privacy of an attorney’s or other advocate’s office while the petition is prepared and filed electronically. Only an original signature is needed on the papers filed with the court.

Because all protection orders in Indiana are to be filed electronically—as mandated in 2009 by the Indiana General Assembly—police officers and FBI agents in the field have access to the most current information about these orders. This includes identification of the protected party or parties, identification and description of the respondent, whether a firearm restriction was ordered, and other important details.

When an order of protection is granted, the petitioner is advised to keep a copy with them at all times. However, that may not always happen. Now that the information is available to law enforcement electronically, this means that if a protection order is filed in one county, and the petitioner travels to another county (or another state), or if it becomes necessary for them to seek police assistance, local officers can access the protection order information even if a copy is not readily available.

In addition to the courts and law enforcement having online access to protection order information, a protection order search is now available on the Indiana Supreme Court’s website. Information about the victim is not included in the online records, but information about the respondent and the order are. In addition, when filing a protection order, the petitioner can ask to be notified electronically—by text message and/or email—of events in the case, such as approval of the order by the court and service of the order on the respondent.

A full listing of advocates throughout Indiana may be found at the Indiana Supreme Court website, as well as more instructional information for clients.•

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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT