A person who has been charged but not convicted of a crime, or has had a conviction vacated, may apply for restricted access to that record. A person may also petition to restrict access to conviction records after 8 years have elapsed since the end of the sentence. It is only available to an adult who has been convicted of a misdemeanor or a nonviolent Class D felony or who had been adjudicated a delinquent child for committing that offense. A petitioner may not have a felony conviction after fulfilling all of his or her sentencing obligations.

Proceedings to Restrict Disclosure When a Person is Not Convicted or the Conviction is Vacated
(I.C. 35-38-5-5.5)

The new petition and procedures to restrict disclosure of arrest records are similar to those for a petition to expunge arrest records (I.C. 35-38-5-1). The primary difference is the relief granted: under the current law the arrest record is expunged; under the new section at I.C. 35-38-5-5.5, the arrest records are restricted from disclosure to noncriminal justice organizations or individuals.

A person who is charged with a crime but who (1) is not prosecuted or whose charges are dismissed, (2) is acquitted of all criminal charges, or (3) is convicted of the crime and the conviction is subsequently vacated, may petition a court to order the state police not to disclose or permit disclosure of the person’s limited criminal history to noncriminal justice organizations or individuals (I.C. 35-38-5-5.5).

The petition must be verified and filed in the court in which the charges were filed if the person was not prosecuted or the charges were dismissed; and filed in the trial court if acquitted or the conviction vacated. The petition should be filed under the case number of the original criminal case, but if prosecution was dismissed before a case number was assigned, the petition should be assigned an MC number.

A person may file a petition no earlier than 30 days after acquittal or dismissal of the charges. If the conviction is vacated, then a petition may be filed no earlier than 365 days after the order is final or certification of the opinion or memorandum decision vacating the conviction. The petition must be served on the prosecuting attorney and the Indiana State Police Department, which is the state central repository for criminal records under I.C.10-13-3-24. A prosecuting attorney may file a notice of opposition with the court within 30 days after the petition is filed.

The court may summarily grant or deny the petition or set the matter for hearing. If the court does not summarily grant or deny the petition, it must set the matter for a hearing if the prosecuting attorney files a notice of opposition. After a hearing is held, the court must grant the petition unless the petitioner is being reprosecuted on charges related to the original conviction. If the petition is granted, the court shall order the state police department not to disclose or permit disclosure of the petitioner’s limited criminal history information under I.C.10-13-3-27 to a noncriminal justice organization or an individual.

Proceedings to Restrict Access to Conviction Records for Misdemeanor and Non-Violent Class D felony Convictions (I.C. 35-38-8)

A court may grant a petition to restrict access to criminal history information related to misdemeanor or nonviolent Class D felony convictions in certain circumstances under I.C. 35-38-8. The law does not apply to sex or violent offenders with the limited exception of an individual whose status as a sex offender is solely due to his conviction for sexual misconduct with a minor (IC 35-42-4-9) if the person was not 21 years of age, the relationship between the person and the victim was a dating relationship or an ongoing personal (and not family) relationship, the person was not more than 4 years older than the victim, there was no force or influence of a drug or controlled substance, and the person was not in a position of authority or substantial influence over the victim [defense described in IC35-42-4-9(e)].

A person, at least eight (8) years after completing his or her sentencing obligations, may petition the sentencing court to order the state police department to restrict access to records of his or her arrest and involvement in criminal or juvenile court proceeding. A person is eligible to petition only if convicted of a misdemeanor or a Class D felony that did not result in injury to a person.

This is a civil proceeding for which an MI case type should be assigned and the regular civil filing fee assessed. If the petition seeks to restrict access to multiple convictions, a single petition may be filed, provided that the convictions were all in the same court. The Indiana State Police Department should be served as it is the official state repository for criminal history information.

A court must grant the petition if: (1) the person is not a sex or violent offender; (2) the person’s conviction or adjudication was for a misdemeanor or a Class D felony not resulting in injury to a person; (3) eight years have passed since the person completed the sentence and fulfilled all obligations imposed as part of the sentence, and (4) the person has not been convicted of a felony since the person completed the sentencing obligations (I.C. 35-38-8-4).

The court granting the petition must order the department of correction and each law enforcement agency incarcerating, treating, or providing services to prohibit the release without a court order of the person’s records or information to a noncriminal justice agency. The court must also prohibit the release without a court order of the same information by any person who provided treatment or other services to the petitioner under court order and any state, regional, or local central repository for criminal history information to a noncriminal justice agency.

If the court orders the records restricted under this provision, a person may then legally state on an application for employment, or any other document, that he or she has not been arrested for, or convicted of, the felony or misdemeanor listed in the restricted records (I.C. 35-38-8-7).

Practice Tips

Although neither I.C. 35-38-5-5.5 nor I.C. 35-38-8 expressly requires the court to restrict access to the court’s records to noncriminal justice agencies or persons, we recommend that it be done because failure to do so would largely frustrate the purposes of the statutes.

For Judges

The court has authority under Administrative Rule 9(G)(1)(c) to exclude information from public access by specific court order. In granting relief to the petitioner in either of the above proceedings, the Division recommends that the court direct the clerk to remove the records from public access.

Because IC 35-38-8 includes a wide range of potential persons or entities who must be ordered not to disclose the information, the Division recommends that the court advise the petitioner that it is the petitioner’s responsibility to inform the court of all persons or entities who possess the information and only those persons or entities identified by the petitioner will be included in the court’s order restricting access.

For Clerks

A copy of the petition, whether filed under IC 35-38-8 or under IC35-38-5-5.5 should be mailed to the Indiana State Police, Records Division, IGN, 100 N. Senate Avenue, Room 301, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204.

The Division has developed a form petition for restricting access under IC 35-38-8 which may be found in the Indiana Supreme Court Self Service Center, courts.in.gov/selfservice.

It is important to remember that an order restricting access is not the same as an expungement, and this is true whether the order is entered under I.C.35-38-5-5.5 or under I.C. 35-38-8-5. The restricted records should still be available to the parties, their attorneys and to criminal justice agencies, but access to the records by noncriminal justice agencies is prohibited without a court order.

“The courthouse has been restored to its rightful place as the center of law and government,” remarked Jefferson Circuit Court Judge Ted R. Todd. The dome, cupola, and third floor of the 156-year-old courthouse, which was being painted in preparation for Madison’s Bicentennial celebration, were razed in a three-alarm fire on May 20, 2009. Twenty-four volunteer fire departments, comprising more than 200 firefighters, responded to this blaze, which raged well into the night.

Representatives from each of these fire departments and agencies were honored at the rededication ceremony on August 26, and commended on their efforts by Madison Fire Chief Steve Horton. Without these brave volunteers, the damage to the courthouse would have been devastating, and most records would likely not have survived. County Commissioner Julie Berry also honored the past and present Jefferson County employees who put in countless hours to secure and organize the court records.

The May 20, 2009 fire took nearly 1 million gallons of water to extinguish and burned well into the night. (Photo by Jessica Lock, celsius.ws)

Jefferson Superior Court Judge Alison Frazier, who held office for only 4 months before the fire, thanked Chief Justice Shepard for his support and encouragement, commenting on his deep and demonstrated commitment to courthouse preservation. She also remarked on the tremendous outpouring of support from judges, clerks, and agencies throughout the state. “As soon as they heard of the fire, judges were calling and asking, ‘What can we do?’ They offered us their courtrooms, staff, everything.”

Main Source Bank allowed the Clerk’s Office to occupy one floor in its Main Street location for more than two years, rent-free. Superior Court proceedings took place in Judge Frazier’s former law office on Second Street, while Circuit Court proceedings were held in the Venture Out Business Center on Madison’s hilltop.

At a completed cost of approximately $8 million, the “new, old” courthouse remains true to its roots. “You can’t tell what is original and what isn’t,” said County Commissioner Julie Berry. The reconstruction has also incorporated symbolic objects recovered from the flames. The dome’s original clock is on display inside the courthouse, while the restored courthouse bell, which fell into the building during the fire, holds a permanent place on the southwest lawn.

The rededication ceremony included music, a ribbon-cutting, and honors to the many firefighters and volunteers who helped to stop the blaze.

Chief Justice Shepard spoke about the transition of county courthouses into the twenty-first century. Historically, he said, the three tallest buildings in a town were a church, a grain elevator, and a courthouse. These in turn represented the faith that caused settlers to cross mountains and rivers; the hope for prosperity; and the inspiration to create justice in society.

“This grand old courthouse is a sound structure once again,” said County Commissioner Tom Petrokowski.
The rededication concluded with a ribbon-cutting ceremony, and the courthouse officially opened for business at 2:30 p.m. on Friday, August 26.

The official Indiana Supreme Court cases start in 1817, but the State Archives had 18 boxes of cases dating to the territorial years 1791 to 1817. Upon learning that it had started the important preservation of these old cases, Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard offered the Court’s moral and fiscal support in order to assure the preservation of these important pieces of Indiana history.

Volunteers at the State Archives help to review and catalog case materials and enter information into a database similar to a card catalog system.

An improved catalog was one of the key factors of this effort. “We originally had to rely on very inadequate indexes to look up these cases,” said Dr. Alan January, Director of Patron Services, Indiana State Archives. “Cases before 1868 had been arranged in alphabetical order by only the first defendant named, which, of course, was fine if you knew the name. The people who were searching for the second party had to look through thousands of files, which was not very easy.”

Getting through the categorization of the old documents was only the first step. In that era, coal was the primary fuel used for heating, so many documents were covered in soot. Surprisingly, very few of the cases were completely ruined or in need of major restoration and the restorers were pleased with how well most of them looked, considering that they were as old as or older than the State of Indiana.

click to enlarge

Maps and pictures that had been entered into evidence as part of these cases have now been carefully cleaned and preserved in display cases. Among the exhibits is a layout of the first Indiana State Prison in Jeffersonville (which housed both men and women) and ticket prices for the Jeffersonville railroad.
Dr. January said interns and volunteers—many of them students from Butler University and Indiana University–Purdue University–Indianapolis (IUPUI)—have been a huge help and “extremely enthusiastic” in the preservation process. They remove the case files from their original packaging, untie the pinkish ribbons that bind the case materials and, wearing white cotton gloves, use “soot sponges” for cleaning.

“The gloves help, but we always somehow manage to still get soot all over us,” said Abigail Kennedy, a volunteer from IUPUI.

The students find the heaviest things they can—usually bricks—to place on top of the documents so they will lay flat. The cases are placed in acid free folders which are put into acid free boxes. They are then stored and protected in the climate and humidity controlled vault of the archives.

Elizabeth Hague, the Archives’ conservation technician, steps in when documents require more than just a soot sponge. She cleans and preserves many of the maps and drawings found in the cases. Hague receives all of the “logs”—the court cases that are rolled so thickly that they literally resemble a log made of paper. She dehumidifies them so they can roll out more easily and then places them in large presses to keep them flat. When any document needs just a bit more attention, she takes to her tools: strips of Japanese mending tissue and methyl cellulose, which patch the document back together.

Many people have been drawn to the archives because of the historical significance of the cases. Dr. January said there has been particular interest in the slavery cases, women’s suffrage, and early challenges to segregated schools. Hague has her own favorite cases, including one divorce proceeding where the husband was declared insane and sent to the state hospital.

These documents have stirred the most interest for historians, genealogists and families looking to trace their roots, Dr. January said. As soon as the first cases went online, he said that requests increased a “hundredfold” for cases involving wills and estates. Susan Brook came all the way from Florida to visit the archives. After seeing family names in the online index of court cases, she traveled to Indiana to see in person the documents about her ancestors Josiah Harbaugh, Thomas Cade, and Jacob H. Powers.

Significant progress has been made on this daunting project, but there is still plenty of work ahead. The staff of the State Archives Division is eagerly forging ahead to make publicly and easily available a wealth of historic information about Indiana and its residents.

To search the database of historic cases, go to courts.IN.gov/cases and choose “Supreme Court Archive Search.”

Randall T. Shepard, Chief Justice of Indiana, welcomed the journalists with remarks regarding the Indiana Supreme Court and the importance of press coverage of the courts. Madison Superior Court Judge Dennis Carroll and Vanderburgh Superior Court Judge Wayne Trockman presented the plenary session on problem-solving courts, speaking about the role of mental health courts and re-entry courts. Other sessions were dedicated to court structure, funding, juvenile jurisdiction, sentencing, death penalty cases, grand jury proceedings and statistical information maintained by the Supreme Court’s Division of State Court Administration.

The Community Relations Committee of the Judicial Conference of Indiana assisted with planning and recruiting participating judges. Judges who served as faculty were Gail Bardach of Hamilton Superior Court, Mary Beth Bonaventura of Lake Superior Court’s Juvenile Division, Roger Duvall of Scott Circuit Court, Robert Altice of Marion Superior Court, Maria Granger of Floyd Superior Court, Senior Judge Barbara Harcourt , and John Baker of the Indiana Court of Appeals.

Judges also showed their support for the program by the Indiana Judges Association’s co-sponsorship of lunch with the Hoosier State Press Association Foundation. Keynote speaker Jerrianne Hayslett, the former Los Angeles Superior Court Media Liaison, talked about her work with the courts and her book Anatomy of a Trial: Public Loss, Lessons Learned from ‘The People v. O.J. Simpson.’ The Indiana State Bar Association sponsored coffee and breaks throughout the event. At the end of the day, Indiana Supreme Court Justices Steven David and Brent Dickson welcomed the journalists to a “behind-the-scenes” tour of the historic courtroom and law library in the State House. The Times of Northwest Indiana investigative reporter, Marisa Kwiatkowski, summed up the day by saying, “We rarely get the opportunity to attend training sessions anymore because of budget constraints, so this was very much appreciated. It was helpful both to reporters without any background in court coverage and to people like myself, who have experience covering the courts.”

The use of judgment dockets can be traced to the time of King Henry VIII (1509 – 1547). In his time, court case records were kept on long rolls of parchment, sometimes called “pipe rolls” or “court rolls” because of their shape. These records were in chronological order with the record of one case ending and the next beginning on the same roll. As you can imagine, it was very difficult to locate the record of a particular case. To avoid “unrolling” these parchments, they began the practice of keeping a separate index roll, called the judgment docket. The docket contained judgment information by case and was arranged alphabetically by the first letter of the debtor’s last name.

Judgment dockets have been used in Indiana since it achieved statehood in 1816. The Revised Statutes of 1831 give these directions regarding the judgment docket:

Chapter XLI, 24

That for the benefit of purchasers and others, the clerk of any court of record shall keep a book in which during every term of such court, or within thirty days thereafter, he shall docket all judgments rendered at such term, for any sum of money, in alphabetical order, by the surname of the party against whom such judgment may have been rendered, and shall enter therein the parties to such judgment, both plaintiffs and defendants, the date of the rendition of such judgment, and the amount of debt, damages and costs thereby recovered; and such docketing shall be matter of record, and open to the inspection of all persons at reasonable times;

Compare this to I.C. 33-32-3-2 and I.C. 33-32-3-3:

I.C. 33-32-3-2

(a) The clerk shall keep a circuit court judgment docket.
(b) Upon the filing in the office of the clerk a statement or transcript of any judgment for the recovery of money or costs, the clerk shall enter, and index in alphabetical order, in this judgment docket a statement of the judgment showing the following:

(1) The names of all the parties.
(2) The name of the court.
(3) The number of the cause.
(4) The book and page of the record in which the judgment is recorded.
(5) The date the judgment is entered and indexed.
(6) The date of the rendition of judgment.
(7) The amount of the judgment and the amount of costs.

I.C. 33-32-3-3

The circuit court judgment docket is a public record that is open during the usual hours of transacting business for examination by any person.

Look’s familiar, doesn’t it?

These are some of the problems with our current judgment docket system that must be addressed:

• The judgment docket contains not only information about court judgments, it also contains entries for “judgments” created by statute such as:
  • failure of railroad company to repair or improve that portion of the street occupied by its track (see I.C. 8-6-12-2);
  • removal of signs that are public nuisance (see I.C. 8-23-20-26);
  • tax warrants (see I.C. 6-8.1-8-2); and
  • liens for unsafe building repairs (see I.C. 36-7-9-13).
• The judgment docket is a tool meant to be usable by the public to locate judgments; however, the public has no way of knowing where a particular judgment is recorded. A recent survey of the Indiana Code found statutory authority for at least 198 judgment dockets. There is no cross referencing of these judgment dockets.
• There is no consistency from county to county or even court to court within the same county about how judgment dockets are kept. Some counties still keep actual judgment docket books; some keep this record electronically; some record unpaid court costs and fines, and some do not.
• Party Identification issues exist. There may be many James Smiths in a county. How can we ensure the judgment docket properly identifies the specific James Smith related to the judgment?
• Confidentiality issues exist. Some juvenile cases contain orders for restitution. According to statute, restitution orders should be recorded in the judgment docket; however, juvenile cases are confidential. How should this be handled?

Recognizing the need to clarify the laws and rules governing the judgment docket, the Indiana Supreme Court’s Records Management Committee formed a task force to study the existing laws and practices and make recommendations for improvement. The task force is comprised of stakeholders from every entity with an interest in the judgment docket.

The Indiana Supreme Court appointed Justice Steven David to chair of the task force, which consists of the following members:

The task force began meeting in April and plans to submit recommendations to the Records Management Committee at its Spring 2012 meeting. Questions about the work of the task force may be directed to Jeff Wiese at 317-232-2542 or jeffrey.wiese@courts.in.gov.

While useful when first implemented many years ago, much of the website’s functionality has become outdated—from a technological standpoint, it is in many respects decidedly “user-unfriendly” when compared to the functionality found on more modern websites. To rectify this, for more than a year the Clerk, the Deputy Clerk, the Appellate IT Director, and various court staff have been working diligently to bring about much-needed modernization to the Clerk of Courts website. Some of those changes have just taken place, others will happen over the next several months. These exciting changes, which are happening in three phases, are discussed below.

Phase I: Online Annual Registration and Updating of Roll of Attorneys Information

In Phase I, we rolled out a new Roll of Attorneys platform that allows attorneys to manage and update their Roll of Attorneys contact information, and make their annual fee payments and annual IOLTA certifications, entirely online. Attorneys and judges are able to create their own user IDs and passwords to access their Roll of Attorneys information, and they can delegate to others (such as administrative assistants, paralegals, bookkeepers, etc.) the ability to access and change their Roll of Attorneys information and make their annual registration fee payments for them. Further, the same individual can be the delegate for multiple attorneys, which accommodates the needs of law firms and other organizations who task one or a few individuals with responsibility for paying annual attorney registration fees for multiple attorneys.

Annual fee payments can be made entirely online either by e-check or credit card. For those who desire or need a paper check or cash option, that option exists as well. Payments made by cash, paper check, or e-check incur any additional charges. Credit card payments continue to incur a convenience fee as they have in the past, but that fee is now lower than it has been in previous years.

These “Phase I” changes were up and running in time for the 2011/12 annual attorney registration and fee payment cycle. Because of that, attorneys did not receive an annual registration statement on August 1, 2011 to mark up and send back to us with an enclosed paper check. Instead, on that date the Clerk’s Office mailed to each attorney a letter describing the new online annual registration process and provided the attorney an initial password, which s/he then personalized when logging into the system for the first time. Once inside the web portal, attorneys provide, through their computers, all the information they used to provide with a pen or typewriter on their annual registration forms.

The letter we send out on August 1, 2011, should be the last U.S. postal mailing sent out from the Clerk’s Office regarding annual registration fee payments. In the future, our intent is to send out such notices via the e-mail. In addition, because we are no longer burdened by the expense and administrative hassle of paper mailings, we will be able to send many more “reminder” notices to delinquent attorneys before their registration and certification deadlines pass, thereby hopefully saving many of them the penalty fees associated with missed deadlines.

Further, this new system will make it much easier for attorneys to review and, when needed, update their Roll of Attorneys contact information not only during the annual registration process but throughout the year, so they can easily comply with Admission and Discipline Rule 2(a)’s requirement that they “notify the Clerk of the Supreme Court of any change of address (including electronic mail address), change of telephone number, or change of name within thirty (30) days of such change.”

Phase II: New Online Appellate Docket

Phase II will involve a complete overhaul of the Clerk’s Online Docket, which, at long last, is being replaced with an entirely new system. Users will be able to search for case dockets using multiple criteria (such as party name, court on appeal, trial court, appellate cause number, lower cause number, case type, litigant name, attorney name, trial court judge, date restrictions, etc.), and then further narrow and/or sort the results by similar criteria. They also will be able to view a docket from the results list, and then “go back” to their results screen again without having to run the query all over again.

Further, interested persons will now be able to use the Clerk’s Online Docket for research purposes in ways they have never been able to before. For example, if someone wanted to see how many appeals were filed from a particular trial court during 2011, she could simply specify the trial court and a date restriction of 2011, and up will come all appeals opened during 2011 from that trial court. She would then be able to look at the dockets in each case, gleaning relevant information from each and then going “back” to the list to look at the next one.

Other examples could include viewing the dockets in all appeals involving mortgage foreclosures, or in all appeals in which a certain attorney was counsel of record, or in all appeals filed with Court of Appeals during a given week. The possibilities are limitless concerning the information that attorneys, members of the media, and members of the public will now be able to gather easily from the Clerk’s Online Docket. We anticipate Phase II will be completed by the end of calendar year 2011.

Phase III: Automatic Notification of Appellate Docket Activity

Phase III will provide attorneys and members of the media and public with the unprecedented ability to receive e-mail notifications when certain activity occurs in an appellate case of their choosing. Through a free online subscription service, users will be able to choose the case or cases for which they wish to receive automatic e-mail notifications when certain docket entries (or any docket entry) is made. Subscriptions can be based on any number of criteria, such as: by appellate court (e.g., All, Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or Tax Court); by appellate cause number; by trial court; by trial court cause number; by county of origin; by specific case type; and by attorney (i.e., cases in which a particular attorney has filed an appearance).

Subscribers will also be able, if they so choose, to further limit the e-mail notifications they receive by information type. For example, if they want to receive e-mail notifications only when orders and/or opinions are issued in all Tax Court cases, then they will be able to so specify. “Order” subscriptions can, in turn, be further narrowed by the specific type of order, such as orders on extensions of time, orders dismissing a case, orders on rehearing petitions, or orders on transfer petitions. Similarly, “opinion” subscriptions can be narrowed so that a person is notified only when a published opinion (or for that matter an unpublished (NFP) opinion) is issued.

In addition, this new functionality will replace the Clerk’s Office’s practice of having a staff person manually e-mail orders and opinions to counsel of record and pro se parties to satisfy the requirements Appellate Rule 26. Now, the system will automatically send to counsel and pro se parties a hyperlink to the digitized order or opinion, which the attorney can print off and/or download. Further, that same hyperlink will also be sent to other subscribers who have signed up to receive notifications for the case in which the order or opinion is issued, if the order or opinion falls within the type of case-related information they have elected to receive. Thus, now all interested persons, and not just counsel of record and pro se parties, will be able to receive, automatically, digital copies of orders and opinions issued in cases in which they have an interest.

This will be a big change for the better, not only for the attorneys involved in the cases, but also for others as well. A lawyer’s staff members will now be able to subscribe to receive e-mail notifications in cases in which the lawyer is involved. Parties will now be able to receive notifications about their without having to check the online docket every day and/or wait to hear about them from their counsel. Members of the media will be able to receive instantaneous updates concerning activity in cases in which they are interested without having to check the dockets, as well as receive published orders and opinions automatically.

Finally, and, importantly, even those who do not subscribe to receive orders automatically will be able to access a case’s orders and opinions through the case’s online docket, as the docket entries for orders and opinions will, after Phase III is complete, be hyperlinked to digitized copies of the orders and opinions. This functionality will be provided on a “going forward” basis, as we currently do not have the resources to be able to digitize and provide hyperlinks to orders and opinions issued before Phase III is complete. We anticipate the completion of Phase III sometime in mid to late 2012.

Conclusion

The completion of the three phases will be the most significant improvements made to the Clerk of Courts website in many years. We are very pleased and excited to bring them to you. Stay tuned!

Judges and court staff from Grant, Hamilton, Jasper, Marion and Morgan counties participated in a two-day court security training session on June 14 and 15, 2011 connected via video conference to teams of their counterparts in the Maryland courts. The National Center for State Courts (NCSC) and the State Justice Institute (SJI) presented the training.

Personnel from the National Center for State Courts and the United States Marshals Service opened day one of the training with an introduction to best practices for court security and an orientation to courthouse security assessments. Representatives from both states then participated in a group discussion following the presentation. In the afternoon, attendees travelled to the Marion County courts to perform security assessments. Participants divided into teams and examined the courthouse exterior, courtrooms, lobby and waiting areas, and the judges’ chambers and administrative offices.

On day two, after morning presentations on threat assessments and incident reporting, the teams in Indiana and Maryland presented the results of the previous day’s security assessments. After an orientation on personal safety and problem solving in the afternoon, teams from each county then worked to develop action items for improvements to security in their courts. The team results were shared with all of the participants in Indiana and Maryland.

See the following link on the NCSC website for their Court Security Resource Guide:
www.ncsc.org/Topics/Courthouse-Facilities/Court-Security/Resource-Guide.aspx

For questions or follow-up please contact Bob Champion, Indiana Judicial Center, Security Advisor, at 317.232.1313 or bob.champion@courts.in.gov.

What is a Security Incident?

Courts should report any incident in or around a court facility and offices that serve the court if the incident involves:

• Violence
• Confiscated weapons
• Threats to public, court, staff, clerk, etc.
• Theft
• Duress
• Fire Alarms
• Biological or chemical agents

Why Report Incidents?

Reporting security incidents allows the compilation of a statewide historical database of incidents that can be used to assess court security needs, determine best practices for prevention and control, and document the need for resources.

Where is the Form?

The Court Management Committee of the Judicial Conference developed the Incident Report Fact Sheet. A newly formed Court Security Committee, chaired by Judge Warren Haas, Grant Superior Court #3, will be focusing on reviewing the form and all other court security matters. The form is available online on the Indiana Courts website at courts.in.gov/center (choose “Courthouse Security”).

Can’t This Be Easier?

Actually, it’s pretty easy. The form can be printed out, filled in, and returned to the Indiana Judicial Center by mail, fax or email.

Mail to:
Indiana Judicial Center
Attn: Bob Champion
30 South Meridian Street Suite 900
Indianapolis, IN 46204

–OR–

Fax to:
317-233-3367
Attn: Bob Champion

–OR–

Email:
bob.champion@courts.in.gov

For more information about the form and the work of the Committee contact Bob Champion, Indiana Judicial Center Security Advisor or Amanda Wishin, Indiana Judicial Center staff attorney for the Court Security Committee, at:

317-233-3363 or
amanda.wishin@courts.in.gov

The new procedure will commence in the same fashion as the current rules, except that instead of the clerk making a determination about delay in ruling, the clerk will forward the praecipe and CCS to the Executive Director of State of Court Administration, who will determine if delay has occurred. If the Director finds that a ruling has been delayed, the Director will instruct the clerk to give notice to the judge and the parties, and record on the CCS that the submission was withdrawn as of the date of the filing of the praecipe. The Director will also forward the matter to the Supreme Court for appropriate further action.

The Supreme Court has held that in making the determination the clerk, “…must operate upon the basis of the objecting party’s praecipe and what is disclosed to him by the trial court’s record at that date.” Baker v. American Metal Climax Corp., 307 N.E.2d 49, (Ind. 1974). The clerks, however, have often expressed to the Supreme Court their discomfort with this duty and the difficulty they experience in assessing some of the more subtle issues that have an impact on whether or not withdrawal of the case from the trial judge is warranted. The Court was persuaded by their comments, and therefore this burden is being removed from the clerks.

It is crucial for counsel to insure that the reasons for withdrawing the submission set out in the praecipe are supported by entries on the CCS. All too often, upon reviewing the praecipe for withdrawal of a submission, the Court has found that the CCS entries do not sustain the reasons given to support finding of delay and withdrawing the submission. For example, on several occasions the Court has seen praecipes stating that the trial court had heard a motion and failed to rule within thirty days, but the CCS did not reflect that a hearing occurred.

In those situations where the CCS does not confirm the contentions set out in the praecipe, resolution of the withdrawal may be delayed while additional information is sought, or the request for withdrawal of submission may be subject to summary denial for lack of a supporting record.

Questions about the new procedure should be addressed to Tom Carusillo at 317-232-2542 or tom.carusillo@courts.in.gov.

The Indiana Judicial Center has prepared a legislative report that contains summaries of select bills of interest passed in the 2011 session and can be can be found at:
http://www.in.gov/legislative/reports/2011/DIGEST_OF_ENACTMENTS.PDF

The entire text of any law, as well as any other legislative action, is available at:
http://www.in.gov/apps/lsa/session/billwatch/billinfo

Civil Law

Procedures in administrative proceedings

S.E.A. 67, P.L. 32-2011

Many changes are made in the laws dealing with administrative proceedings.

Settlement conferences in residential foreclosures

S.E.A. 582, P.L. 170-2011

The statute governing settlement conferences in residential mortgage foreclosure actions does not include a land contract. It also makes other changes in the statute and urges the Legislative Council to assign to the Commission on Courts, or another appropriate committee, the task of studying real estate short sale procedures and specific topics concerning non-judicial mortgage foreclosures. A final report must be issued no later than November 1, 2011.

Disclosure of firearm or ammunition information

S.E.A. 411, P.L. 17-2011

An applicant for employment has a cause of action against a public or private employer asking for disclosure of information concerning gun or ammunition ownership or possession, or if a condition of employment is to forgo the lawful ownership or use of a firearm. A governmental entity may not restrict the possession of a firearm at a person’s residence during a declared emergency.

Secured transactions

H.E.A. 1321, P.L. 54-2011

The Uniform Commercial Code pertaining to secured transactions is amended to conform to recommendations made by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws.

Environmental legal action statute of limitations

S.E.A. 346, P.L. 154-2011

This law, along with other changes, sets the statute of limitations for an environmental legal action and an action for a contribution to pay for corrective action related to a release from an underground storage tank.

Recognition of foreign country money judgments

H.E.A. 1548, P.L. 213-2011

The Uniform Foreign Country Money Judgments Recognition Act is adopted, providing a process for recognizing and enforcing money judgments obtained in other nations.

Disinterment of human remains

H.E.A. 1432, P.L. 132-2011

A court may authorize the removal of the remains of a deceased human from a cemetery for certain purposes if the consent of the owner of the cemetery cannot be obtained, or the identity of certain individuals from whom consent is required cannot be determined.

Criminal Law

Handgun possession

S.E.A. 506, P.L. 164-2011

A person has much broader rights to carry a handgun without a license under the provisions of this law. It also provides that a person who has been convicted of domestic battery may not possess or carry a handgun unless the person’s right to possess a firearm has been restored by a court.

Preemption of local firearm regulation

S.E.A. 292, P.L. 152-2011

This law prohibits, with certain exceptions, a political subdivision from regulating: (1) firearms, ammunition, and firearm accessories; (2) the ownership, possession, carrying, transportation, registration, transfer, and storage of firearms, ammunition, and firearm accessories; and (3) commerce in and taxation of firearms, firearm ammunition, and firearm accessories. A person may file an action against a political subdivision if the person is adversely affected by a local law or regulation.

Purchase of firearms

S.E.A. 94, P.L. 60-2011

It is now a Class C felony for a person to knowingly or intentionally give false information on certain forms or offer false evidence of identity in purchasing or otherwise securing the delivery of a firearm.

Alcoholic beverage matters

S.E.A. 78, P.L. 216-2011

Those selling alcoholic beverages must now ask for ID if the buyer appears to be less than 40 years of age rather than asking everyone.

Tobacco matters

H.E.A. 1405, P.L. 10-2011

It defines “dissolvable tobacco product” and establishes penalties for the sale and purchase of dissolvable tobacco products involving persons less than 18 years of age.

Sale of ephedrine or pseudoephedrine

S.E.A. 503, P.L. 221-2011

This law defines a “retailer” and sets forth the duties relating to the electronic tracking of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine (PSE).

Substance abuse study

H.E.A. 1502, P.L. 134-2011

The Legislative Council is urged to assign to a study committee the topics of: (1) unlawful ingestion of controlled substances by pregnant women; (2) substance abuse by men; and (3) whether the penalty for unlawful use of a controlled substance should be based on the amount of active ingredient contained in the controlled substance.

Access to child pornography in criminal discovery

S.E.A. 216, P.L. 148-2011

A court may permit, with restrictions, a defendant to inspect, view, and examine material that constitutes child pornography at a state or local court or law enforcement facility if the defendant demonstrates that inspecting, viewing, and examining the material is necessary to the defendant’s defense.

Child molesting and child solicitation study

H.E.A. 1324, P.L. 128-2011

The Legislative Council is urged to assign the topics of child molesting and child solicitation to an existing study committee to study the topic, including whether to elevate the sentences for the offenses under certain circumstances.

Public voyeurism

S.E.A. 19, P.L. 75-2011

A person commits a Class A misdemeanor by peeping at the private area of an individual and recording an image by means of a camera. The penalty is increased to a Class D felony if the person has a prior conviction or: (1) publishes the image; (2) makes the image available on the Internet; or (3) transmits or disseminates the image to another person.

National fingerprint based criminal history checks

H.E.A. 1318, P.L. 127-2011

Certain individuals with mental illnesses may not possess a firearm, and establishes a procedure to remove this prohibition after the person is released from commitment or has completed treatment.

Arrest records

H.E.A. 1211, P.L. 194-2011

A person charged with a crime may petition a court to restrict disclosure of arrest records related to the arrest if the person: (1) is not prosecuted or if charges against the person are dismissed; (2) is acquitted of all criminal charges; or (3) is convicted of the crime and the conviction is subsequently vacated.

Closed circuit television testimony

H.E.A. 1215, P.L. 28-2011

For purposes of a hearing concerning the admissibility of certain statements or videotapes made by a protected person in a criminal action, the protected person may attend the hearing through the use of closed circuit television.

Conflict of interest

S.E.A. 559, P.L. 110-2011

It specifies certain definitions and defenses that apply to the crime of conflict of interest, a Class D felony.

Competency examination

S.E.A. 262, P.L. 151-2011

A court may appoint two or three competent, disinterested psychiatrists, psychologists or physicians to examine a defendant who raises an incompetency claim; however, one of the appointees must be a psychiatrist or psychologist.

Illegal immigration matters

S.E.A. 590, P.L. 171-2011

Makes various changes concerning the enforcement of federal immigration laws, illegal immigration, and related criminal matters. The Legislative Council is urged to assign to an existing study committee certain topics concerning immigration and consult with the Lieutenant Governor.

Official misconduct

S.E.A. 217, P.L. 102-2011

A public servant commits official misconduct, a Class D felony, if the public servant knowingly or intentionally commits a crime in the performance of the public servant’s official duties.

Criminal law study committees

S.E.A. 90, P.L. 98-2011

It relocates the statute establishing the Criminal Law and Sentencing Policy Study Committee, and extends the expiration of the Criminal Code Evaluation Commission until December 31, 2012.

Indiana State Museum and historic sites

H.E.A. 537, P.L. 167-2011

A person who knowingly or intentionally alters, without a permit, historic property located on property owned or leased by the State commits a Class B misdemeanor.

Budget bill [parole; diversion, deferral programs and plea bargaining study]

H.E.A. 1001, P.L. 229-2011

The 24-hour electronic monitoring of certain parolees is subject to the amount appropriated to the Department of Correction for a monitoring program. The Criminal Justice Institute is required to study and report to the Budget Committee by December 1, 2011 on: (1) the use of diversion and deferral programs in Indiana; and (2) the use of plea bargaining in Indiana.

Various criminal matters

H.E.A. 1083, P.L. 180-2011

This law concerns sexting and bullying. It provides defenses to the crimes of disseminating matter that is harmful to minors, child exploitation, and possession of child pornography if a cellular telephone was used and the defendant and recipient of the matter are certain ages and meet other requirements. The Criminal Code Evaluation Commission is required to study certain sex crimes against children during the 2011 interim.

Family and Juvenile Law

Interstate compact for juveniles

S.E.A. 34, P.L. 137-2011

It adopts the interstate compact for juveniles and adds members to the state council for interstate adult offender supervision. The state council for interstate adult offender supervision is also the council for interstate juvenile supervision. An offender and juvenile offender is required to pay a $125 application fee to apply for a transfer out of state and counties must establish a county offender transportation fund.

Prevention programs for at-risk children

H.E.A. 1107, P.L. 183-2011

A juvenile court may create a voluntary preventative program for at-risk children, including appointment of staff , procedures to follow and immunity for certain actions.

Claiming child as dependent for tax purposes [child support]

H.E.A. 1427, P.L. 210-2011

A court must specify in a child support order which parent may claim the child as a dependent for tax purposes, and establishes factors to consider in making a decision. A prosecuting attorney or private attorney who undertakes activities required under Title IV–D is not required to mediate, resolve, or litigate a dispute between the parties relating rights to claim a child as a dependent for tax purposes.

Parental reimbursement for juvenile services

H.E.A. 1316, P.L. 204-2011

The Division of Youth Services Transitional Services Fund (fund) is established to provide juvenile transitional services to delinquent offenders.

Notice to parent, guardian or custodian

H.E.A. 1422, P.L. 131-2011

If a child is named in a written report of a crime and the law enforcement agency that receives the report reasonably believes that the child may be a victim of a crime, the law enforcement agency, subject to certain exceptions, must make a reasonable attempt to notify the parent, guardian or custodian of the child about the report and provide them with certain contact information.

Department of Child Services

S.E.A. 465, P.L. 162-2011

This law makes numerous changes in child services laws including the responsibilities of DCS, probate courts, and juvenile courts.

Release of adoption information

H.E.A. 1201, P.L. 191-2011

Various changes are made to the adoption laws regarding the release of identifying and non-identifying information.

Judicial Administration

Mandatory retirement age for trial court judges

S.E.A. 463, P.L. 161-2011

It repeals or otherwise removes all provisions that establish a mandatory retirement age for superior court and county court judges.

Credit time

H.E.A. 1416, P.L. 228-2011

An imprisoned person may earn credit time for successfully completing the requirements for a high school diploma through correspondence courses.

Various provisions concerning courts

H.E.A. 1266, P.L. 201-2011

The expiration date of the Commission on Courts is changed from June 30, 2011, to June 30, 2015. All circuit courts, superior courts, and probate courts have: (1) original and concurrent jurisdiction in all civil cases and in all criminal cases; (2) de novo appellate jurisdiction of appeals from city and town courts; and (3) in Marion County, de novo appellate jurisdiction of appeals from township small claims courts. The law concerning the establishment and operation of county courts is repealed. (Since January 1, 2009, no county court exists in Indiana.) A unified circuit court is established for Clark County, Madison County and Henry County. The four judges of the Lake Superior Court County Division are to be nominated by the Lake County Superior Court Judicial Nominating Commission and appointed by the Governor and subject to the question of retention or rejection by the Lake County electorate every six years. (Current law provides that the judges of the Lake Superior Court County Division are elected every six years.)

Problem-solving courts

H.E.A. 1153, P.L. 187-2011

It expands who is eligible to participate in court established alcohol and drug services programs. Procedures must be followed by a problem solving court to terminate an individual’s participation in a court program. The parent or guardian is financially responsible for service fees and chemical testing expenses assessed against the child by the problem solving court. A city, town or county user fee fund includes problem solving court fees collected by the clerk of the court. A Criminal Law and Sentencing Policy Study Committee is established.

Jurisdiction of university and college police

H.E.A. 1406, P.L. 30-2011

A police officer employed by a college or university may exercise the officer’s police power in any part of Indiana if the college or university adopts a resolution specifically describing the territorial jurisdiction of a police officer, and the board of trustees sends notice to the superintendent of State Police and the sheriff (or chief of police in Indianapolis) of the county in which the institution is primarily located. It requires a police officer employed by a college or university to meet certain training requirements.

Budget bill [court fees and judicial salaries]

H.E.A. 1001, P.L. 229-2011

The Budget Committee may release funds for the judicial technology and automation project after the Division of State Court Administration certifies that the judicial technology automation project is in compliance with the information sharing and exchange provisions of IC 33–24–6–3(a). The automated record keeping fee is reduced to $5.00 after June 30, 2011, and it specifies where the fee is deposited and allocates its distribution. The public defense administration fee is increased from $3.00 to $5.00, and it increases the allocation of state funds to the Public Defense Fund. Funds derived from a deferral program or pretrial diversion program are to be dispersed only by the adoption of an ordinance appropriating the funds by the fiscal body of the city, town or county for one or more of the listed statutory purposes. Judicial salaries may be increased only if approved by the Chief Justice.

Salaries and Benefits

State Deferred Compensation Plan

S.E.A. 521, P.L. 21-2011

If a state employee does not choose another amount, the state shall, in each pay period during the first year the employee is automatically enrolled in the State Deferred Compensation Plan, deduct from the employee’s compensation the greater of the maximum amount of any match provided by the State on behalf of the employee to the plan or one-half percent of the employee’s base salary.

Traffic Law

Use of handheld telecommunications device while driving

H.E.A. 1129, P.L. 185-2011

A person who uses a telecommunications device to type, transmit, or read a text message or an electronic mail message while operating a moving motor vehicle commits a Class C infraction. A person may use hands free or voice operated technology to transmit a text message or an electronic mail message, and may call 911 to report an emergency while operating a moving motor vehicle. A police officer may not confiscate a telecommunications device for the purpose of determining compliance or confiscate a telecommunications device and retain it as evidence pending trial for a violation.

Various motor vehicle issues

S.E.A. 528, P.L. 109-2011

An individual must hold a valid operator’s license with a motorcycle endorsement in order to operate a motorcycle. Statutory inconsistencies are removed concerning the ineligibility of a habitual traffic violator for a hardship license. Other changes are made involving proof of financial responsibility and the suspension of driving privileges.

Probate Law

Probate, trusts, and transfer on death transfers

S.E.A. 169, P.L. 36-2011

It makes numerous amendments to existing law concerning transfer of title of certain vehicles, unsupervised estates, powers of personal representatives, transfer of real property, matrimonial trusts, retirement accounts, and other matters.

Uniform Adult Guardianship

H.E.A. 1055, P.L. 178-2011

The Uniform Adult Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Jurisdiction Act is adopted in Indiana, and makes other changes in existing guardianship laws.