ILNews

Prosecutor's office misses deadline for seized cash

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


The Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department likely will have to return more than $273,000 in cash seized as part of a racketeering investigation after the Marion County Prosecutor's Office missed a civil forfeiture deadline.

Law enforcement officers from IMPD, the FBI, Indiana State Police and other agencies in February 2009 raided six Indianapolis scrap yards operated by metal recycling powerhouse OmniSource, collecting evidence and seizing cash and property.

The raids were the culmination of a year-long undercover investigation into the company's purchase of stolen cars, boats, gutters, wiring and other items as scrap metal prices boomed.

Law enforcement officers turned the case over to the Prosecutor's Office Grand Jury division, which continues to investigate. And the Indianapolis-based Garrison Law Firm, which Prosecutor Carl Brizzi hired several years ago to handle select forfeiture cases in exchange for 30 percent of the take, began working on a case under federal racketeering statutes.

But no one—not Garrison nor anyone at the Marion County Prosecutor's Office—filed the paperwork necessary to keep the seized cash within 180 days, as required under state law. Each party blames the other for the oversight.

Law enforcement sources said the case never was referred to the internal Prosecutor's Office forfeiture unit, and that Garrison took responsibility from the start. A series of e-mails among Prosecutor's Office officials, obtained by Indianapolis Business Journal, say the civilian employees who run IMPD's forfeiture division were told Garrison was handling the case and were never notified of a change. IBJ is a sister publication to Indiana Lawyer.

But Greg Garrison said his contract with the county only gives him a cut of forfeited property he recovers directly, so he would not have been entitled to a percentage of the OmniSource cash seized by police on Feb. 23, 2009.

"They seized a bunch of money when they executed those search warrants," said Garrison, a talk-show host on WIBC-FM 93.1 in Indianapolis and Brizzi pal. "That’s not my bailiwick. I don’t have authority over that stuff."

IBJ on Monday requested a copy of the contract that outlines Garrison's role but has not yet received it from the Prosecutor's Office. Brizzi elected to split the forfeiture duties between the private law firm and employees of the Prosecutor's Office over objections from some of his own top deputies, who were concerned about just such a slip-up.

Deputy Prosecutor Larry Brodeur, who heads the narcotics and forfeiture units, reiterated his concerns in an internal e-mail after learning of the missed deadline.

"Without assigning any blame to any particular individual or group of individuals, I would note that this is an inherent problem with having forfeitures done in part internally and in part through outside counsel," Brodeur wrote on March 29, in a message to Brizzi and other top officials. "Sooner or later there is going to be some confusion or miscommunication on a particular case that results in a missed filing or other problem."

A law enforcement source said IMPD is considering filing a disciplinary complaint against Brizzi for failing to file in time to hold the seized cash. At least $273,727 was seized in the raids, according to a tally of amounts listed in IMPD incident reports.

Garrison said he could not discuss a timetable for taking action under the federal racketeering statutes, but he said an asset seizure still is possible even if a grand jury decides against criminal charges.

"Our intention is to seek forfeiture of the assets used in the criminal enterprise," said Garrison, who also handles forfeiture cases for the Metro Drug Task Force.

OmniSource has not yet asked for its cash back but would be entitled to collect the money immediately if it asks, multiple law enforcement sources said.

Marion County Prosecutor's Office spokeswoman Susan Decker said the office cannot comment on active grand jury cases. Top-ranking Prosecutor's Office officials including Chief Trial Deputy David Wyser, who negotiated the Garrison contract, did not return phone messages.

OmniSource, a subsidiary of publicly traded Steel Dynamics Inc., is represented by Barnes & Thornburg partner Larry A. Mackey, who previously served as campaign chairman for Brizzi. Mackey said his relationship with the prosecutor has earned him no favors in the case.

"OmniSource was stunned when it became the subject of search warrants at their Indianapolis facilities more than a year ago," Mackey said in a statement. "Upon conclusion of the MCPO reviews, OmniSource will seek the return of all of its property that was taken during the searches, including a sum of seized currency."

No civil or criminal charges have been brought against OmniSource or any of its employees, Mackey noted. He said OmniSource has worked to eliminate scrap-metal theft and is cooperating with investigators.

Before the raid, OmniSource was one of the largest employers of off-duty IMPD officers. Department brass last year ordered officers to stop working for the company. No charges are expected for the roughly 50 officers who worked for OmniSource.

A spokesman for the IMPD referred all questions to the Prosecutor's Office. Police haven't discussed the case publicly since IMPD Maj. Chris Boomershine told industry newspaper Platts Steel Markets Daily in February 2009 that OmniSource kept documents on how to avoid antitrust violations, hired off-duty IMPD officers to target competitors and bought cars altered to appear stolen from undercover police officers.

Mackey blasted Boomershine's disclosures in a three-page letter to top officials at IMPD and the Prosecutor's Office in March 2009.

"Divulging confidential information in and of itself was wildly inappropriate," Mackey wrote. "Divulging it to Platts Steel Markets Daily constituted a purposeful effort on the Major's part to publicly damage OmniSource and its publicly traded parent."

The fact no action has been taken against OmniSource 14 months after the raid is no surprise to Republican blogger Gary Welsh. He predicted in May 2009 on his Advance Indiana blog that the case would go nowhere under Brizzi.

“These cases drag on and on and when nobody’s looking, they quietly announce there are no charges and is no evidence of a crime,” Welsh said.

Brizzi has refused, through spokeswoman Decker, to answer questions or grant an interview with IBJ in recent weeks, even as he conducted several interviews with other news outlets including WIBC radio.

IBJ has been investigating Brizzi's outside business dealings while in office, including a building he owns in partnership with a prominent defense attorney who has landed favorable plea deals from the Prosecutor's Office. Brizzi, a Repubican whose second term ends in December, is not running for re-election.

"When there is a tangible and meaningful request for additional information, Prosecutor Brizzi would be willing to sit down for an interview," Decker wrote. "During and after the WIBC interview, Prosecutor Brizzi fully addressed all of the issues and the answers speak for themselves."
 

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. I work with some older lawyers in the 70s, 80s, and they are sharp as tacks compared to the foggy minded, undisciplined, inexperienced, listless & aimless "youths" being churned out by the diploma mill law schools by the tens of thousands. A client is generally lucky to land a lawyer who has decided to stay in practice a long time. Young people shouldn't kid themselves. Experience is golden especially in something like law. When you start out as a new lawyer you are about as powerful as a babe in the cradle. Whereas the silver halo of age usually crowns someone who can strike like thunder.

  2. YES I WENT THROUGH THIS BEFORE IN A DIFFERENT SITUATION WITH MY YOUNGEST SON PEOPLE NEED TO LEAVE US ALONE WITH DCS IF WE ARE NOT HURTING OR NEGLECT OUR CHILDREN WHY ARE THEY EVEN CALLED OUT AND THE PEOPLE MAKING FALSE REPORTS NEED TO GO TO JAIL AND HAVE A CLASS D FELONY ON THERE RECORD TO SEE HOW IT FEELS. I WENT THREW ALOT WHEN HE WAS TAKEN WHAT ELSE DOES THESE SCHOOL WANT ME TO SERVE 25 YEARS TO LIFE ON LIES THERE TELLING OR EVEN LE SAME THING LIED TO THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR JUST SO I WOULD GET ARRESTED AND GET TIME HE THOUGHT AND IT TURNED OUT I DID WHAT I HAD TO DO NOT PROUD OF WHAT HAPPEN AND SHOULD KNOW ABOUT SEEKING MEDICAL ATTENTION FOR MY CHILD I AM DISABLED AND SICK OF GETTING TREATED BADLY HOW WOULD THEY LIKE IT IF I CALLED APS ON THEM FOR A CHANGE THEN THEY CAN COME AND ARREST THEM RIGHT OUT OF THE SCHOOL. NOW WE ARE HOMELESS AND THE CHILDREN ARE STAYING WITH A RELATIVE AND GUARDIAN AND THE SCHOOL WON'T LET THEM GO TO SCHOOL THERE BUT WANT THEM TO GO TO SCHOOL WHERE BULLYING IS ALLOWED REAL SMART THINKING ON A SCHOOL STAFF.

  3. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  4. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  5. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

ADVERTISEMENT