ILNews

8 more claim abuses in suspended Clark County drug court

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Eight new plaintiffs have been added to a federal civil-rights lawsuit claiming officials involved in Clark County’s suspended drug court program jailed participants for months without due process, conducted improper searches and made unauthorized arrests.

The filing brings the number of claimants to 16, and that number is likely less than half of those expected to ultimately join the proposed class-action litigation, according to the suit.

The amended complaint in Destiny Hoffman, et al. v. Judge Jerome Jacobi, et al., 4:14-CV-12, alleges civil-rights abuses in the problem-solving court that was suspended by the Indiana Judicial Conference in Feburary. It’s the first time the state has taken such action against a problem-solving court.

Destiny Hoffman spent 154 days in the Clark County Jail after she provided a diluted drug screen, and her improper detention led to the discovery that numerous drug court participants had been wrongly jailed for extended periods without a hearing or representation of counsel. Others claimed drug court staff had conducted unauthorized searches or come to their homes and illegally arrested them, at gunpoint in at least one claimed instance.

Of the eight plaintiffs added to the suit before U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker in the Southern District of Indiana, New Albany, seven allege they were jailed without a hearing or the presence of counsel for periods ranging from 18 days to 89 days. One plaintiff claims she was twice improperly jailed – once for 58 days and another time for 59 days.

One of the newly added plaintiffs alleges that in addition to being improperly jailed for 54 to 59 days, he also was illegally arrested by drug court staff at his home.

Clark Circuit No. 2 Judge Jerry Jacobi had presided over the drug court program. After it was suspended, the Judicial Center approved a conditional arrangement in which existing participants’ cases were transferred to Clark Circuit No. 4 Judge Vicki Carmichael.

The drug court has not been permitted to accept new cases, however.

The litigation filed by Louisville attorney Mike Augustus also seeks certification of four classes of drug court plaintiffs:

  •   Those jailed more than 72 hours without due process;
  •   Those on probation from the drug court who are alleged to have violated its rules or policies;
  •   Those arrested by drug court staff who lacked arrest powers between Feb. 18, 2012, and the date of class certification, and;
  •   Those who are or will be subject to arrest by drug court staff who have no arrest powers.


The suit alleges the actions of the drug court violated participants’ rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth and 14th amendments.  

There were approximately 60 to 70 drug court participants in the program when it was suspended and then granted conditional authority.

“The precise number of class members is unknown at this time but is expected to well exceed 40,” the complaint says of those who may have been improperly jailed more than 72 hours.

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. 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?

  2. 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.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT