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. Joseph Buser, Montgomery County Chief Prosecutor, has been involved in both representing the State of Indiana as Prosecutor while filing as Representing Attorney on behalf of himself and the State of Indiana in Civil Proceedings for seized cash and merchandise using a Verified Complaint For Forfeiture of Motor Vehicle, Us Currency And Reimbursement Of Costs, as is evident in Montgomery County Circuit Court Case Number 54C01-1401-MI-000018, CCS below, seen before Judge Harry Siamas, and filed on 01/13/2014. Sheriff Mark Castille is also named. All three defendants named by summons have prior convictions under Mr. Buser, which as the Indiana Supreme Court, in the opinion of The Matter of Mark R. McKinney, No. 18S00-0905-DI-220, stated that McKinney created a conflict of interest by simultaneously prosecuting drug offender cases while pocketing assets seized from defendants in those cases. All moneys that come from forfeitures MUST go to the COMMON SCHOOL FUND.

  2. I was incarcerated at that time for driving while suspended I have no felonies...i was placed on P block I remember several girls and myself asking about voting that day..and wasn't given a answer or means of voting..we were told after the election who won that was it.

  3. The number one way to reduce suffering would be to ban the breeding of fighting dogs. Fighting dogs maim and kill victim dogs Fighting dogs are the most essential piece of dog fighting Dog fighting will continue as long as fighting dogs are struggling to reach each other and maul another fih.longaphernalia

  4. Oh, and you fail to mention that you deprived the father of far FAR more time than he ever did you, even requiring officers to escort the children back into his care. Please, can you see that you had a huge part in "starting the war?" Patricia, i can't understand how painfully heartbreak ithis ordeal must have been for you. I read the appellate case and was surprised to see both sides of the story because your actions were harmful to your child; more so than the fathers. The evidence wasn't re weighed. It was properly reviewed for abuse of discretion as the trial court didn't consider whether a change of circumstance occurred or follow and define the statutes that led to their decision. Allowing a child to call a boyfriend "daddy" and the father by his first name is unacceptable. The first time custody was reversed to father was for very good reason. Self reflection in how you ultimately lost primary custody is the only way you will be able heal and move forward. Forgiveness of yourself comes after recognition and I truly hope you can get past the hurt and pain to allow your child the stability and care you recognized yourself that the father provides.

  5. Patricia, i can't understand how painfully heartbreak ithis ordeal must have been for you. I read the appellate case and was surprised to see both sides of the story because your actions were harmful to your child; more so than the fathers. The evidence wasn't re weighed. It was properly reviewed for abuse of discretion as the trial court didn't consider whether a change of circumstance occurred or follow and define the statutes that led to their decision. Allowing a child to call a boyfriend "daddy" and the father by his first name is unacceptable. The first time custody was reversed to father was for very good reason. Self reflection in how you ultimately lost primary custody is the only way you will be able heal and move forward. Forgiveness of yourself comes after recognition and I truly hope you can get past the hurt and pain to allow your child the stability and care you recognized yourself that the father provides.

ADVERTISEMENT