« Ind. Decisions - 7th Circuit decides three Indiana cases today | Main | Ind. Decisions - "Justices seem hesitant to toss Indiana's voter ID law" »
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Ind. Decisions - "State high court sides with police on DUI arrest"
Reporting today on the Supreme Court's decision yesterday in the case of State of Indiana v. Cheryl Oddi-Smith [see ILB summary here, along with links to earlier related entries], Jon Murray of the Indianapolis Star reports:
Police and prosecutors welcomed an Indiana Supreme Court decision Wednesday that settled questions about the validity of arrests following the Indianapolis police merger.
The questions arose after a Marion County judge threw out a drunken-driving case in August because the arresting officer had not taken a new oath for the consolidated Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department, which formed in January 2007.In the 5-0 opinion, Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard wrote that sworn officers in the Indianapolis Police and the Marion County Sheriff's departments retained their status when the agencies merged.
The decision reinstates the charges against Cheryl Oddi-Smith in Marion Superior Court.Attorney General Steve Carter said he was relieved that the high court didn't allow her to escape through a loophole. It wasn't clear whether just a handful or thousands more arrests would have been in jeopardy if the Supreme Court had upheld the dismissal. * * *
Oddi-Smith, now 44, was arrested on Jan. 15, 2007, by IMPD officer William J. Bueckers after a three-car fender-bender.
Her attorneys, James Voyles and Annie Fierek, argued that officers' sworn status didn't automatically transfer to IMPD, citing the merger ordinance passed by the City-County Council and IMPD's policy book. Hill agreed and granted their motion to suppress evidence because it was based upon an illegal arrest.
The attorney general's lawyers argued to the Indiana Supreme Court in November that state law doesn't even require police officers to take an oath to uphold the U.S. and state constitutions.
The justices disagreed. But their decision found the intent of a seamless transition for officers in both the state law allowing the police merger and the local ordinance carrying it out. An oath requirement in IMPD's general orders is aimed only at newly minted officers, the decision says.
"We think it sufficient grounds to say that the arresting officer was recruited, trained, and sworn as an IPD officer and that he took all that with him to the IMPD," the six-page opinion concludes.
Oddi-Smith is a secretary at Voyles' firm.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on January 10, 2008 03:04 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions