ILNews

Judge strikes Bloomington smoke-detector ordinance; similar measure pends in Indy

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A judge’s recent ruling that struck a Bloomington ordinance requiring hard-wired smoke detectors in rental properties comes as the Indianapolis City-County Council considers raising the requirements for all dwellings in Marion County.

Monroe Circuit Judge E. Michael Hoff ruled Feb. 10 that Bloomington’s ordinance was unenforceable because it conflicted with the state’s smoke-detector statute.

Indiana Code 22-11-18-3.5 states that all smoke detectors must be battery operated or hard-wired into the dwelling’s electrical system. “However, the City’s new smoke detector ordinance prohibits battery operated smoke detectors,” Hoff wrote. “For that reason, the City’s ordinance is not enforceable.”

Cohen & Malad P.C. attorney Michael McBride represented Bloomington landlords who opposed the ordinance that would have required the hard-wired devices installed by 2018.
He said Hoff’s ruling came exactly three years after Hoff voided another Bloomington ordinance requiring minimum window sizes, where McBride also represented property owners.

Hoff ruled the Bloomington smoke-detector ordinance could not be enforced without prior approval of the Indiana Fire Prevention and Building Safety Commission.

“It’s commendable what they’re trying to do – they’re trying to save lives,” McBride said. “The question is what hoops do you have to jump through.  … Is it good to enact an ordinance, or is this something (cities) should push to the commission to change state law?”

Indianapolis’ proposed ordinance drafted in late 2013 would require all dwellings in Marion County to have smoke detectors with 10-year non-replaceable batteries or hard-wired devices by July. The ordinance since has been referred back to the Public Safety and Criminal Justice Committee.

 

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. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  2. If the end result is to simply record the spoke word, then perhaps some day digital recording may eventually be the status quo. However, it is a shallow view to believe the professional court reporter's function is to simply report the spoken word and nothing else. There are many aspects to being a professional court reporter, and many aspects involved in producing a professional and accurate transcript. A properly trained professional steno court reporter has achieved a skill set in a field where the average dropout rate in court reporting schools across the nation is 80% due to the difficulty of mastering the necessary skills. To name just a few "extras" that a court reporter with proper training brings into a courtroom or a deposition suite; an understanding of legal procedure, technology specific to the legal profession, and an understanding of what is being said by the attorneys and litigants (which makes a huge difference in the quality of the transcript). As to contracting, or anti-contracting the argument is simple. The court reporter as governed by our ethical standards is to be the independent, unbiased individual in a deposition or courtroom setting. When one has entered into a contract with any party, insurance carrier, etc., then that reporter is no longer unbiased. I have been a court reporter for over 30 years and I echo Mr. Richardson's remarks that I too am here to serve.

  3. A competitive bid process is ethical and appropriate especially when dealing with government agencies and large corporations, but an ethical line is crossed when court reporters in Pittsburgh start charging exorbitant fees on opposing counsel. This fee shifting isn't just financially biased, it undermines the entire justice system, giving advantages to those that can afford litigation the most. It makes no sense.

  4. "a ttention to detail is an asset for all lawyers." Well played, Indiana Lawyer. Well played.

  5. I have a appeals hearing for the renewal of my LPN licenses and I need an attorney, the ones I have spoke to so far want the money up front and I cant afford that. I was wondering if you could help me find one that takes payments or even a pro bono one. I live in Indiana just north of Indianapolis.

ADVERTISEMENT