ILNews

Justices decide statute, court rule issue

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Even if a court rule is no longer relevant and an underlying state statute has been removed from the books, the Indiana Supreme Court says it still applies and must be followed until the justices revisit it themselves or say otherwise.

In a decision issued Friday by the Indiana Supreme Court, justices explored the controversial issue of police wiretapping and prosecutorial warrants, and how state statute has evolved since the early 1990s. The case is State v. Michael Haldeman and Rachel Lawson, No. 55S00-0906-CR-266, and involves two consolidated appeals.

The case involves the police investigation of a drug tracking organization centered in Morgan County, an investigation that began in late 2007. Eventually, police had enough information to request "intercept warrants" that would allow them to put wiretaps on certain cell and residential phone lines. Morgan Superior Judge Jane Spencer Craney found probable cause for these warrants and granted them, which led to the eventual arrests of both Michael Haldeman and Rachel Lawson. They were arrested and charged in 2008 with one or more counts of conspiracy to deal methamphetamine, a Class B felony.

But in getting those underlying wiretapping warrants, prosecutors hadn't complied with Criminal Rule 25 that required an independent preliminary review by the Indiana Court of Appeals before the warrants could be acted on. The Indiana Supreme Court had established the rule in 1990, soon after the General Assembly enacted Indiana Code 35-33.5-3-3 requiring that kind of judicial review, but legislators repealed that statute in 2007 - before this case materialized. At the trial level, Morgan Superior Judge Christopher Burnham found that the state should have complied with Criminal Rule 25 despite the statute's repeal; he suppressed the wiretap-garnered evidence as a result.

The state argued that Criminal Rule 25 was created solely to "accompany and give support to a statute," and that the legislature's repeal of that statute vitiated the need for any procedures to implement the now-defunct requirement. In essence, the court rule no longer applies because the statute has been revoked. But the defense argued that Criminal Rule 25 remains in effect despite the repeal, particularly because appellate judges can provide a more "neutral and detached" review on such a difficult issue touching on citizens' privacy and civil liberties.

The case went up on appeal, but the state sought emergency transfer from the Supreme Court and justices heard arguments in September before granting transfer and issuing its decision today.

In writing for the court, Justice Brent Dickson found that Criminal Rule 25 clearly was intended to supply the procedural framework for automatic review detailed in the state statute. But even when that law's been repealed, it doesn't automatically invalidate or vitiate a criminal procedure rule established by the high court.

"Until amended or rescinded by this Court, the validity of Criminal Rule 25 and its procedural requirements remain in full force and effect," he wrote. "The policy arguments presented by the State and the defendants, while relevant to whether the Rule should be modified or repealed in the future do not affect its present validity."

Even though the state erred in not following Criminal Rule 25 in these cases, the justices said that doesn't mean Judge Burnham should have automatically suppressed the wiretapping warrants issued by his colleague. Instead, he should have determined whether the pair's "substantial rights" were affected before making that decision. Finding that neither party demonstrated their substantial rights were affected by the state's failure to follow Criminal Rule 25, the justices reversed the suppression.

All five justices agreed in the final decision, though Justice Robert Rucker concurred in result. The cases are remanded for further proceedings, with the wiretapping warrants not suppressed.

ADVERTISEMENT

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. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT