Stalking

IMPD officer was qualified as an expert in stalking case

January 20, 2017
Olivia Covington
An Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department sergeant was qualified as an expert to testify about Facebook records and digital trails that led to a man’s multiple convictions for felony stalking, the Indiana Court of Appeals decided Friday.
More

Jury awards Erin Andrews $55M in lawsuit over nude video

March 8, 2016
 Associated Press
A jury awarded Erin Andrews $55 million in her lawsuit against a stalker who bought a hotel room next to her and secretly recorded a nude video, finding that the hotel companies and the stalker shared in the blame.
More

Court finds double jeopardy in stalking case

February 24, 2016
Scott Roberts
The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed and remanded a man’s conviction of stalking as a Class C felony to Dearborn Superior Court because of double jeopardy violations. The court did uphold invasion of privacy charges and the revocation of his probation.
More

COA upholds attempted stalking conviction

November 5, 2015
Jennifer Nelson
A man who claims he is the only person in Indiana ever charged with or convicted of attempted stalking failed to convince the Indiana Court of Appeals that his conviction should be overturned.
More

Trial court erred in ordering harassing neighbor’s firearms seized

October 16, 2015
Dave Stafford
A trial court erred in ordering firearms seized and in placing other restrictions on a man the court properly determined had committed stalking against his neighbor, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled Friday.
More

COA affirms stalking conviction of man who followed teen in stores

March 17, 2015
Jennifer Nelson
A southern Indiana man who followed the same teenage girl through two stores on separate occasions, staying as close as five feet to her at all times, could not convince the Indiana Court of Appeals that his felony conviction for stalking needed to be overturned.
More

Man charged with stalking Indiana legislator

October 28, 2014
 Associated Press
A man running as an independent for an Indiana House seat faces charges that he stalked the district's current representative.
More

Judges dismiss man’s appeal of protection order extension

March 27, 2014
Jennifer Nelson
The Indiana Court of Appeals dismissed a Porter County man’s appeal of a judge’s decision to reset a hearing on a temporary protection order for six months after the victim had an anxiety attack while testifying. The judges held Douglas Allison had to seek a discretionary interlocutory appeal in the matter.
More

Grant gives victims and police easy access to protective orders

August 14, 2012
Marilyn Odendahl
Indiana is the third state in the nation to launch the Hope Card program which will help law enforcement quickly identify and take action against individuals who violate protective orders.
More

High court upholds stalking conviction

March 21, 2012
Jennifer Nelson
It’s up to a trier of fact to determine if someone’s conduct involved repeated or continuing harassment to qualify as stalking, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled, since there is no statutorily determinate timeframe required for this type of conviction.
More

Justices accept 5 cases

July 25, 2011
Jennifer Nelson
The Indiana Supreme Court has granted transfer to five cases, including a first impression issue dealing with Social Security income and restitution.
More

Judges split on stalking conviction

April 29, 2011
Jennifer Nelson
The Indiana Court of Appeals was divided Friday in reversing a man’s conviction of stalking. The decision hinged on their interpretations of the term “repeated” in Indiana’s anti-stalking laws.
More

Appeals court rules on Ohio River phone-stalking case

January 28, 2011
Michael Hoskins
The Indiana Court of Appeals has reaffirmed its standing that prosecutors can’t elevate a misdemeanor crime to a felony if the defendant didn’t know the victim worked in law enforcement.
More

Juvenile detainees learn about domestic violence

October 22, 2010
IL Staff
The Marion Superior Court’s Juvenile Detention Center is hosting a series of domestic violence workshops today for children detained in the facility. This is the first time the center has hosted this conference.
More

Judges reverse protection order

April 22, 2010
Jennifer Nelson
A protection order under Indiana Code Section 34-26-5 against a woman should not have been issued because there was no evidence of domestic violence, stalking or a sex offense as required by statute, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today.
More
Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The appellate court just said doctors can be sued for reporting child abuse. The most dangerous form of child abuse with the highest mortality rate of any form of child abuse (between 6% and 9% according to the below listed studies). Now doctors will be far less likely to report this form of dangerous child abuse in Indiana. If you want to know what this is, google the names Lacey Spears, Julie Conley (and look at what happened when uninformed judges returned that child against medical advice), Hope Ybarra, and Dixie Blanchard. Here is some really good reporting on what this allegation was: http://media.star-telegram.com/Munchausenmoms/ Here are the two research papers: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0145213487900810 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213403000309 25% of sibling are dead in that second study. 25%!!! Unbelievable ruling. Chilling. Wrong.

  2. MELISA EVA VALUE INVESTMENT Greetings to you from Melisa Eva Value Investment. We offer Business and Personal loans, it is quick and easy and hence can be availed without any hassle. We do not ask for any collateral or guarantors while approving these loans and hence these loans require minimum documentation. We offer great and competitive interest rates of 2% which do not weigh you down too much. These loans have a comfortable pay-back period. Apply today by contacting us on E-mail: melisaeva9@gmail.com WE DO NOT ASK FOR AN UPFRONT FEE. BEWARE OF SCAMMERS AND ONLINE FRAUD.

  3. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  4. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

  5. From the article's fourth paragraph: "Her work underscores the blurry lines in Russia between the government and businesses . . ." Obviously, the author of this piece doesn't pay much attention to the "blurry lines" between government and businesses that exist in the United States. And I'm not talking only about Trump's alleged conflicts of interest. When lobbyists for major industries (pharmaceutical, petroleum, insurance, etc) have greater access to this country's elected representatives than do everyday individuals (i.e., voters), then I would say that the lines between government and business in the United States are just as blurry, if not more so, than in Russia.

ADVERTISEMENT