IMPD lawyer to be deposed in councilor’s wrongful arrest case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Lawyers for Indianapolis City-County Councilman Joseph Simpson may depose a city attorney about legal advice she gave in another case regarding a state statute at the heart of Simpson’s wrongful arrest case, a federal judge ruled Friday

Magistrate Judge Tim Baker of the District Court for the Southern District of Indiana denied the city’s motion to quash a subpoena seeking to depose Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department attorney Melissa Kramer on her interpretation of a criminal statute under which Simpson was charged.

“Ordinarily, such advice would be shielded on grounds of privilege. However, Office of Corporation Counsel, which represents Defendants, has put Defendants in a bind,” Baker wrote in Joseph Simpson v. City of Indianapolis and Andrew McKalips, 1:13-cv-791.

Because a transcribed copy of Kramer’s legal opinion was inadvertently produced to attorneys in prior litigation and the city never asked for its return and allowed a witness to be questioned about it in another case, “the unmistakable conclusion is that Defendants have waived any privilege associated with Kramer’s opinion,” Baker wrote.

“The Court rejects Defendants’ suggestion that Kramer’s deposition would be superfluous. Kramer must be produced for a deposition, and Defendants must produce documents as outlined,” Baker ruled.

Simpson was arrested by Officer Andrew McKalips about two years ago after the councilman allegedly refused to leave a neighbor’s house where the officer was investigating a possible burglary. Simpson was charged with refusing to leave the scene of an emergency incident area under the Interference with a Firefighter chapter of I.C. 35-44-1-4-5, and resisting law enforcement, according to the order. The charges later were dismissed.

Simpson sued the city  in May 2013, claiming false arrest and malicious prosecution. The suit alleges Simpson suffered “physical discomfort, loss of liberty, embarrassment and humiliation, emotional distress, and damage to his good name and reputation,” and it seeks damages as well as attorney fees and costs.

At issue is Kramer’s interpretation of whether the interference with a firefighter statute pertained to police emergency scenes. Kramer had provided an opinion in a prior case that also involved Simpson’s lawyer, Indianapolis civil-rights attorney Richard Waples.    

Simpson, a Democrat, represents District 9.



Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. So men who think they are girls at heart can use the lady's potty? Usually the longer line is for the women's loo, so, the ladies may be the ones to experience temporary gender dysphoria, who knows? Is it ok to joke about his or is that hate? I may need a brainwash too, hey! I may just object to my own comment, later, if I get myself properly "oriented"

  2. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  3. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.

  4. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  5. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.