ILNews

Marion County announces plan to build new criminal justice complex

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Under a plan announced by city and court officials Wednesday, Marion County’s courts, jails and other offices would be located in one complex instead of spread out around downtown Indianapolis and the county.

Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard, Marion Superior Judge David Certo and Marion County Sheriff John Layton announced the plans, which have been decades in the making. Ballard said the modern facility will improve public safety and generate enough efficiencies to pay for the new complex without a tax increase.

Right now, the criminal justice support facilities are spread throughout Indianapolis, with some facilities miles apart. The process after a person is arrested in Marion county requires multiple transfers to different buildings, which officials says is time consuming and expensive. The new design would streamline that process and eliminate hazards such as radio dead zones and blind spots, making the facilities safer. Staff, visitors and litigants currently share space with violent offenders.

“Our mission in the Marion Superior Court compels us to provide an appropriate, safe and accessible setting for litigants and the public,” Certo said. “The outdated layout of our current facilities prevents us from meeting these goals with our courtrooms, offices, and public spaces. I enthusiastically support this long overdue effort to create a new and safer court facility.”

The complex would house separate adult and juvenile jails along with inmate processing, detention and criminal court facilities. The offices of the prosecutor, public defender, probation and community corrections would also be in the complex. The clerk, coroner, crime lab and other state and federal agencies could follow.

The plan calls for the new judicial center to include space for 25 to 30 courtrooms, which would provide relief for the nearly 40 Circuit and Superior courts now housed in the City-County Building.

No location has been determined yet and officials will begin evaluating proposals in February 2014 with final section by September. The goal is for construction to begin in 2015 with a projected opening date of 2018.

By combining the facilities and offices in one area, the buildings will use shared resources such as food preparation and maintenance services. Transportation costs will also be reduced as moving inmates through the current system adds tens of thousands of dollars in additional security costs.

The county expects these cost savings as well as the reallocation of budget dollars from current contracts and leases that are set to expire, and private retail rental on the new property, to pay for the project.

The city also sees development potential for the land where Jail 1, Jail 2 and the Community Corrections facilities sit in downtown Indianapolis. That land was recently valued at $17.6 million.  
 

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. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT