ILNews

Security increased following threats to judge

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Huntington County Sheriff’s Department has taken steps to protect a northeastern Indiana judge after learning of threats made against the judge late last week.

The sheriff’s department released a brief statement saying it learned of the threats Jan. 7 against Huntington Circuit Judge Thomas Hakes. The sheriff’s department said the threats are being investigated by the Indiana State Police, but both law enforcement agencies declined to give specifics concerning the nature of the threats, who may have made the threats, or any motives, citing the ongoing investigation. The release didn’t specify what steps the sheriff’s department is taking, and Sheriff Terry Stoffel would only say it involves personnel protecting the judge.

Indiana State Police spokesperson Sgt. Ron Galaviz said it’s common for the state police to become involved in investigations regarding threats against public officials. The Huntington County Sheriff’s Department received the initial complaint regarding the threats and then contacted the criminal division at the ISP post in northeast Indiana to investigate. The investigator will determine if the threats have merit, and if so, will submit findings to the county prosecutor.

Galaviz said the investigator hopes to complete the investigation in the next week.

Stoffel, who served as chief of the Huntington Police Department for eight years prior to taking office as sheriff last week, said, fortunately, these types of incidents are rare.

Judge Hakes was appointed to the bench in June 2006, with his term ending Dec. 31, 2012. His office declined to comment on the matter.
 

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 need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT