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. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT