ILNews

Justices to demonstrate electronic ticketing

IL Staff
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Two Indiana Supreme Court justices will be on hand in Indianapolis tomorrow for a demonstration of a new, statewide electronic ticketing system.

Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard and Justice Frank Sullivan will join Indianapolis Public Safety Director Scott Newman and law enforcement to show how the new system will work.

Called eCWS - electronic Citation and Warning System - the new mobile system allows police to create tickets electronically and send them to a central location for law enforcement, prosecutors, and courts without additional data entry or the need to read handwritten tickets.

The information is assigned a case number and tracked by Odyssey, the Supreme Court's case management system that was first adopted last year. This new electronic method provides an end-to-end system in which data is input once and can then be shared with multiple users.

The demonstration of the PDA-sized unit begins at 2 p.m. at the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department's Northwest District and Ticket Branch Office, 3821 Industrial Blvd., Indianapolis.

The system is funded in part through an Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant for the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice, and is administered by the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute. The Indiana Department of Homeland Security also provided grant funding.
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

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT