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. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT