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after the General Assembly enacted Indiana Code 35-33.5-3-3 requiring that kind of judicial review, but legislators repealed that statute in 2007 - before this case materialized.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 In essence, the court rule no longer applies because the statute has been revoked.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. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  3. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT