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. Call it unauthorized law if you must, a regulatory wrong, but it was fraud and theft well beyond that, a seeming crime! "In three specific cases, the hearing officer found that Westerfield did little to no work for her clients but only issued a partial refund or no refund at all." That is theft by deception, folks. "In its decision to suspend Westerfield, the Supreme Court noted that she already had a long disciplinary history dating back to 1996 and had previously been suspended in 2004 and indefinitely suspended in 2005. She was reinstated in 2009 after finally giving the commission a response to the grievance for which she was suspended in 2004." WOW -- was the Indiana Supreme Court complicit in her fraud? Talk about being on notice of a real bad actor .... "Further, the justices noted that during her testimony, Westerfield was “disingenuous and evasive” about her relationship with Tope and attempted to distance herself from him. They also wrote that other aggravating factors existed in Westerfield’s case, such as her lack of remorse." WOW, and yet she only got 18 months on the bench, and if she shows up and cries for them in a year and a half, and pays money to JLAP for group therapy ... back in to ride roughshod over hapless clients (or are they "marks") once again! Aint Hoosier lawyering a great money making adventure!!! Just live for the bucks, even if filthy lucre, and come out a-ok. ME on the other hand??? Lifetime banishment for blowing the whistle on unconstitutional governance. Yes, had I ripped off clients or had ANY disciplinary history for doing that I would have fared better, most likely, as that it would have revealed me motivated by Mammon and not Faith. Check it out if you doubt my reading of this, compare and contrast the above 18 months with my lifetime banishment from court, see appendix for Bar Examiners report which the ISC adopted without substantive review: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS

  2. Wow, over a quarter million dollars? That is a a lot of commissary money! Over what time frame? Years I would guess. Anyone ever try to blow the whistle? Probably not, since most Hoosiers who take notice of such things realize that Hoosier whistleblowers are almost always pilloried. If someone did blow the whistle, they were likely fired. The persecution of whistleblowers is a sure sign of far too much government corruption. Details of my own personal experience at the top of Hoosier governance available upon request ... maybe a "fake news" media outlet will have the courage to tell the stories of Hoosier whistleblowers that the "real" Hoosier media (cough) will not deign to touch. (They are part of the problem.)

  3. So if I am reading it right, only if and when African American college students agree to receive checks labeling them as "Negroes" do they receive aid from the UNCF or the Quaker's Educational Fund? In other words, to borrow from the Indiana Appellate Court, "the [nonprofit] supposed to be [their] advocate, refers to [students] in a racially offensive manner. While there is no evidence that [the nonprofits] intended harm to [African American students], the harm was nonetheless inflicted. [Black students are] presented to [academia and future employers] in a racially offensive manner. For these reasons, [such] performance [is] deficient and also prejudice[ial]." Maybe even DEPLORABLE???

  4. I'm the poor soul who spent over 10 years in prison with many many other prisoners trying to kill me for being charged with a sex offense THAT I DID NOT COMMIT i was in jail for a battery charge for helping a friend leave a boyfriend who beat her I've been saying for over 28 years that i did not and would never hurt a child like that mine or anybody's child but NOBODY wants to believe that i might not be guilty of this horrible crime or think that when i say that ALL the paperwork concerning my conviction has strangely DISAPPEARED or even when the long beach judge re-sentenced me over 14 months on a already filed plea bargain out of another districts court then had it filed under a fake name so i could not find while trying to fight my conviction on appeal in a nut shell people are ALWAYS quick to believe the worst about some one well I DID NOT HURT ANY CHILD EVER IN MY LIFE AND HAVE SAID THIS FOR ALMOST 30 YEARS please if anybody can me get some kind of justice it would be greatly appreciated respectfully written wrongly accused Brian Valenti

  5. A high ranking Indiana supreme Court operative caught red handed leading a group using the uber offensive N word! She must denounce or be denounced! (Or not since she is an insider ... rules do not apply to them). Evidence here: http://m.indianacompanies.us/friends-educational-fund-for-negroes.364110.company.v2#top_info

ADVERTISEMENT