ILNews

Indiana Supreme Court denies review of Kokomo case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Within hours of hearing oral arguments, the Indiana Supreme Court decided not to grant transfer to review the case involving a Kokomo fire captain ;s demotion to firefighter because of comments made from outside the department. The appeals court had ruled the demotion did not constitute a violation of his First Amendment free-speech rights.

The court had not released a decision by early this afternoon, but the City of Kokomo had posted a press release saying the justices did not agree to accept transfer of in Kokomo v. Scott Kern, No. 34A04-0512-CV-726. Court officials confirmed transfer was denied.

The case stems from Kern ;s 2005 demotion, which was a result of his comments outside the department relating to a fireworks display in the neighborhood where he lived the year before. Fire Chief Dave Duncan denied an application for a fireworks display permit because it was considered incomplete, and Kern criticized the decision and made comments to the residents and local newspaper that it was politically motivated. The department denied those accusations and later demoted him for saying the comments brought the department into disrepute and undermined the administration.

The trial court found the demotion invalid because it violated Kern ;s free speech rights, but the Court of Appeals reversed that decision in its Aug. 17, 2006.

During Supreme Court arguments, attorney Andrew Wirick, representing Kokomo, argued this case is a matter of the department ;s integrity while Kern ;s attorney John Kautzman said it comes down to free speech only being protected for complimentary speech, which discourages public employees from publicly speaking about matters of concern. Justices asked questions about fabricated statements, political affiliations, and variations of harm caused by comments.

"This is an important case not only for the City of Kokomo but also for every city in Indiana," Kokomo ;s corporate counsel Jon Mayes said in the news release. "The City is a firm believer in protecting the First Amendment rights of citizens, but the courts recognize that those being unjustly criticized also have rights."
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

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT