ILNews

Police deaths, injury inspire late legislation

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Although the deadline has passed to introduce new legislation, St. Joseph County Prosecutor Michael Dvorak has called on legislators to find current bills that will allow amendments to statute in response to two separate car accidents involving police officers.

On Jan. 9, Mishawaka Police Cpl. James Szuba and his K-9 partner, Ricky, were killed after an allegedly drunk driver fled from police, ran a red light, and hit Szuba's car. Current law allows for someone to be charged only for causing the death of a law enforcement animal when he or she knowingly or intentionally injures the animal. When the public learned Dvorak couldn't charge the driver for Ricky's death, they contacted legislators, including Rep. Craig Fry, D-Mishawaka, to update the OWI-causing-death statute, Indiana Code 9-30-5-5.

But the accident happened the day after the deadline to file bills in the legislature, so now Fry has to find a live bill to amend.

After hearing from constituents about the matter, Fry contacted Dvorak to discuss finding a bill to place the proposed amendment to the OWI-causing-death statute. The amendment as proposed by Dvorak would include any animal denoted as a law enforcement officer, such as horses used by police forces, which may have a greater probability of being hit and killed by a drunk driver than police dogs, Dvorak said. The two are also working on amending I.C. 35-44-3-3 to make it a Class A felony if someone resists law enforcement while operating a vehicle in a manner that causes the death of a law enforcement officer.

Approximately 10 days after the death of Szuba and Ricky, Dvorak said a South Bend officer was involved in an accident with an alleged drunk driver who was going the wrong way on a one-way street. The officer swerved to avoid hitting the other car but struck the back of it. He had some minor injuries and that driver fled. As a result of that accident, Dvorak found some gaps in the hit-and-run statute concerning battery of a person and suggested language to Fry to address those gaps.

Dvorak acknowledged it may be difficult to pass the amendment to the hit-and-run statute at this point in the short session because it's more complex than the other proposals. But he thinks the other two statutes have a better chance of making it through this session because they are simpler and precise changes to existing law.

"They aren't making broad policy change. There's very little language, yet at the same time, they have a profound impact if passed by law," he said.

Fry said he's been researching which bills to introduce these amendments, but there isn't a lot of legislation to amend because of the short session. The amendments may be offered to existing Senate bills up for hearing in House committees. Fry spent this week trying to get authors, co-authors, and sponsors lined up. There's a chance the amendments could get heard in committee next week.

Dvorak said if the amendments don't pass this session, he believes the issues will come up again in next year's long session.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  2. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

  3. This law is troubling in two respects: First, why wasn't the law reviewed "with the intention of getting all the facts surrounding the legislation and its actual impact on the marketplace" BEFORE it was passed and signed? Seems a bit backwards to me (even acknowledging that this is the Indiana state legislature we're talking about. Second, what is it with the laws in this state that seem to create artificial monopolies in various industries? Besides this one, the other law that comes to mind is the legislation that governed the granting of licenses to firms that wanted to set up craft distilleries. The licensing was limited to only those entities that were already in the craft beer brewing business. Republicans in this state talk a big game when it comes to being "business friendly". They're friendly alright . . . to certain businesses.

  4. Gretchen, Asia, Roberto, Tonia, Shannon, Cheri, Nicholas, Sondra, Carey, Laura ... my heart breaks for you, reaching out in a forum in which you are ignored by a professional suffering through both compassion fatigue and the love of filthy lucre. Most if not all of you seek a warm blooded Hoosier attorney unafraid to take on the government and plead that government officials have acted unconstitutionally to try to save a family and/or rescue children in need and/or press individual rights against the Leviathan state. I know an attorney from Kansas who has taken such cases across the country, arguing before half of the federal courts of appeal and presenting cases to the US S.Ct. numerous times seeking cert. Unfortunately, due to his zeal for the constitutional rights of peasants and willingness to confront powerful government bureaucrats seemingly violating the same ... he was denied character and fitness certification to join the Indiana bar, even after he was cleared to sit for, and passed, both the bar exam and ethics exam. And was even admitted to the Indiana federal bar! NOW KNOW THIS .... you will face headwinds and difficulties in locating a zealously motivated Hoosier attorney to face off against powerful government agents who violate the constitution, for those who do so tend to end up as marginalized as Paul Odgen, who was driven from the profession. So beware, many are mere expensive lapdogs, the kind of breed who will gladly take a large retainer, but then fail to press against the status quo and powers that be when told to heel to. It is a common belief among some in Indiana that those attorneys who truly fight the power and rigorously confront corruption often end up, actually or metaphorically, in real life or at least as to their careers, as dead as the late, great Gary Welch. All of that said, I wish you the very best in finding a Hoosier attorney with a fighting spirit to press your rights as far as you can, for you do have rights against government actors, no matter what said actors may tell you otherwise. Attorneys outside the elitist camp are often better fighters that those owing the powers that be for their salaries, corner offices and end of year bonuses. So do not be afraid to retain a green horn or unconnected lawyer, many of them are fine men and woman who are yet untainted by the "unique" Hoosier system.

  5. I am not the John below. He is a journalist and talk show host who knows me through my years working in Kansas government. I did no ask John to post the note below ...

ADVERTISEMENT