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

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT