ILNews

Judge dismisses civil forfeiture suit against state prosecutors

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Marion Superior judge has tossed a lawsuit against 78 county prosecutors being accused of breaking the law by not turning over seized assets from criminals to a school construction fund. In doing so, the judge expressed concern about the lack of reasoning and consistency demonstrated by prosecutors throughout the state.

Judge Tim Oakes issued a three-page ruling late Tuesday in State of Indiana Ex Rel Adam Lenkowsky v. Christopher E. Harvey, et. al., No. 49D13-1007-PL-031572, dismissing the plaintiff's claims because the state already knew about the forfeiture issue at the time the action was filed and because a civil forfeiture action doesn’t meet the meaning of “claim” outlined in Indiana Code 5-11-5.5-1(1).

State law currently allows law enforcement agencies to keep a portion of seized funds to cover "law enforcement costs" and give the rest to the common school fund geared toward construction costs. But the amounts are left to the discretion of each prosecutor and each has interpreted that differently.

Media reports have analyzed the variances in how this money is handled throughout the state. The issue sparked misconduct accusations against former Delaware County Prosecutor Mark McKinney, and a disciplinary action is currently pending before the Indiana Supreme Court.

Indianapolis attorney Paul Ogden filed the suit in Marion Superior Court Aug. 12 and it was unsealed after a required 120-day waiting period. The named plaintiff is a Marion County resident and attorney practicing at the same firm that filed the suit, and on behalf of the state he’s suing these county prosecutors because they violated state forfeiture law and the Indiana Constitution. This came as a qui tam action via the Indiana Claims Act, but the Indiana attorney general’s office declined and instead defended the prosecutors.

On Tuesday morning, just hours before the judge handed down his order dismissing this action, Attorney General Greg Zoeller spoke to a group of about 100 lawyers in Indianapolis on the Indiana Claims Act and how it enables private whistleblowers to file suit and expose fraud. Spokesman Bryan Corbin said the timing was coincidental as the speech was planned weeks ago, and it was by chance it fell on the same day as Judge Oakes ruled on the Lenkowsky case. The judge heard arguments on the case in January, before his decision this week granting the state’s motion to dismiss.

Pointing out that qui tam actions date back to when the government was being sold bad mules, Judge Oakes noted that the current Indiana Claims Act resembles the federal False Claims Act, specifically requiring that the state not know about a whistleblower issue at the time of filing. He also held that civil forfeitures or court judgment entries don’t fit the “claim” definition written into state statute.

“While Mr. Lenkowsky may have chosen the wrong legal mule to ride here to pursue this issue, the merits of the issue at the heart of the matter do not deserve to be ignored," the judge wrote. “Troubling to this Court is the relative lack of any logic or consistency in the assessment of law enforcement costs across the state if not in Marion County. Little, if any, logical assessment, much less consistent assessment, appear to enter the Prosecutors' minds as they determine their take for pursuing the forfeiture actions."

Judge Oakes referred to a recent non-binding attorney general opinion and some uncited state precedent, but said his simple reading of Article 8, Section 2 of the Indiana Constitution indicates that all forfeitures are covered and has few limits, if any.

“Perhaps more importantly, the constitutionality of the actions currently in practice in our state and the interpretation of this section of our Indiana Constitution are not before this Court today. Those considerations may be better addressed by our legislature and another Court at another day.”

In response to the ruling, Zoeller praised the judge’s findings and agreed that the current system needs legislative review – something that is currently pending. Senate Bill 215 would reform how civil forfeiture funds are handled by prosecutors, and it’s been approved by the Senate and on Monday passed through the House Committee on Judiciary.

Ogden couldn’t be immediately reached to comment on the ruling or whether he will file an appeal.

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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT