ILNews

Judges affirm expungement of sheriff deputy’s arrest

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals upheld a trial court’s decision to grant a sheriff deputy’s petition for expungement of his arrest record dealing with four counts of Class D felony theft. His employer argued that he received pay from the police force while working at other jobs.

Marion County Sheriff’s Deputy Donald A. Prout worked full time with the sheriff’s office and also worked security part time at a Kroger store and a bus station. A Marion County Sheriff’s Office detective was asked to investigate accusations that Prout was being paid by MCSO while he was working his other jobs. The detective obtained documents from MCSO and Prout’s other employers indicating that his work schedules overlapped on four occasions – Oct. 27, 2011, and Feb. 6, 7 and 27, 2012. Prout was asked to explain the discrepancies, but he refused. The detective filed a probable cause affidavit, which resulted in Prout being charged with four counts of Class D felony theft. Those charges were later dismissed due to unspecified evidentiary problems.

Prout then petitioned to have his arrest record expunged, which the trial court granted. The judge found no offense was actually committed and there was an absence of probable cause to support the filing of the theft charges. The Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department, which pays Prout for his work as a sheriff’s deputy, appealed.

Prout had explained at the expungement hearing that his bus station job would allow him to leave his shift early in order to work his normal 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. shift. One of the days in question, his time card shows he worked his normal shift in question, but he was actually at a police training session from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. Prout admitted that his time card indicated he worked his normal shift time, which resulted in a shift differential pay of $0.70 an hour, so he was overpaid that day by $5.60.

In Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department v. Donald A. Prout, 49A04-1305-CR-236, the IMPD argued that Prout failed to carry his burden that no offense was committed, pointing to Prout’s acknowledgment that he was overpaid on that one day. But the theft charges were based on not working at all on that day, not that he was overpaid, the appeals court pointed out.

The judges also declined to reweigh the evidence.
 

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. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT