ILNews

Judges, prosecutor at odds over 12-hour rule for Indy arrestees

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Marion Superior judges Friday delayed enacting a policy opposed by Prosecutor Terry Curry that would ensure major felony suspects a probable cause determination within 12 hours of arrest.

Judge Lisa Borges said at a meeting of the Marion Superior Executive Committee that criminal judges officially backed the policy recommended by the Indianapolis Office of Corporation Counsel, since currently those arrested for less serious offenses already receive a determination within 12 hours. Borges said people arrested on suspicion of major felonies are immediately transported to the Marion County Jail after processing.

Borges said representatives of the prosecutor’s office voiced their objections to the policy during public meetings, but judges were acting on recommendations from county attorneys who advised that the county could be liable for having different standards for similarly situated arrestees.

If the policy were enacted, Borges said, suspects would be released if there was no probable cause determination within 12 hours of arrest.

Executive Committee Chairman Judge David Certo criticized Curry for sending judges an email about an hour before the committee meeting requesting enactment of the policy change be delayed. Certo encouraged Curry to explain to the committee why the policy shouldn’t be adopted at its next meeting July 8.

“I would expect the elected prosecutor in this room,” Marion Superior Criminal Division 9 Judge Marc Rothenberg said.

“It is not unknown in the community what the legal ramifications might be” of holding an arrestee longer than 12 hours without a PC determination, Rothenberg said.

“We have a responsibility as a court,” he said. “…It’s frustrating we can’t get it done now.”

Judges grudgingly delayed acting on the proposal and Certo said that as a courtesy the committee should give Curry an opportunity to explain why the courts shouldn’t adopt the rule.

Judges James Osborn and John Chavis said the courts also have an obligation to protect public safety, and that the committee should allow Curry to present any concerns that may not have previously been raised.

Chavis said he was sensitive to the need to ensure timely release of people wrongly arrested, but he said public safety also needs to be weighed. “I think there are valid concerns on both sides,” he said.

The committee’s next public meeting is at noon July 8 in Room 1221 of the City-County Building.  
 

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. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT