The city council voted unanimously on Monday night to ease penalties. If you are caught with 10 grams or less you will be ticketed and no longer face jail time. The fine for possession will be between $50 and $500.

The city decided to make the change for two reasons, according to WBEZ 91.5. The first is to lessen the burden on the local court system. The second is to save people from having such a criminal offense on their record, potentially impacting their ability to gain worthwhile employment.

Mayor Elizabeth Tisdahl says she heard a story on NPR about a seminal ordinance in Ann Arbor, Michigan, planting the idea in her head.

According to NORML (National Organization for the Repeal of Marijuana Laws), 14 states and 50 cities across the country have adopted similar laws, opting for a less severe punishment when it comes to possession of small amounts of marijuana.

Overall, the attitude towards marijuana decriminalization and even legalization has changed in the last several years. Support for such measures has grown significantly as citizens realize the true costs of marijuana laws.

Evanston is a college town and these communities seem to support decriminalizing marijuana more than other cities. But the vice president for university relations at Evanston’s Northwestern University campus says he doesn’t think the new law will impact students. “At least to my knowledge there has not been a real problem or concern in terms of Northwestern students being arrested for possession of marijuana,” he said.

A criminal conviction, even for marijuana possession, can come back to haunt you for years to come. While some prospective employers are understanding and can overlook blemishes like this, others won’t let your foot in the door when they realize you have a criminal record. It’s even worse if the crime on your record is a more serious felony.

Not everywhere in Indiana is as liberal as Evanston in this regard. As stated, possession of marijuana is a misdemeanor offense under state law. If you have anything less than 30 grams, you could be spending some time in jail. More than 30 grams and you’re facing a felony offense.

If you are accused of a marijuana crime, whether it’s possession or possession with intent to distribute, we may be able to help. Contact our offices today to discuss your options.

The editorial notes that less than half of the Lake County OWI arrests result in OWI convictions. For drunk driving charges that don’t involve high BAC levels or other more serious circumstances, prosecutors are often willing to reduce first offense OWI charges down to reckless driving offenses.

A former prosecutor, now defense attorney is quoted in this article, stating that Lake County is among the most lenient counties in Indiana in prosecuting OWI charges.

It is also noted that not convicting on a drunk driving charge means if that person were to re-offend, they aren’t facing a 2nd offense OWI, with much more serious consequences, and a required ignition interlock device as a condition of license reinstatement.

Prosecutors in Lake County argue that a charge reduced to a reckless driving is not a slap on the wrist. It is a criminal conviction on your record, and an alcohol related reckless driving plea will almost certainly also require an alcohol education program as part of the probation requirements.

Most people who are pulled over and arrested for drunk driving in Indiana have no idea that they may be legally impaired. And while, rates of 2nd offense charges are too high, they are most likely people with serious alcohol problems. Most people arrested once never re-offend. If they made a one time mistake, many will be extra careful about drinking and driving for the rest of their lives.

And even if that person does end up getting charged with a subsequent OWI charge, a judge will certainly see the previous conviction as an alcohol related reckless driving offense, and will not go lightly in any OWI sentencing, whether or not it is on the books as only a first offense.

Fighting an Indiana OWI Charge

This article also shows the value of going with an experienced local Indiana defense lawyer. A lawyer who has defended many DUI offenses in the past will know the local landscape, and what certain courts and judges will go along with in a plea deal. This may not be obvious to someone who doesn’t fight a lot of these cases, so having a defense lawyer who will push for the best possible result is a huge advantage.

When evaluating a criminal defense lawyer in Indiana, you should always ask how many cases like yours they have handled, and what range of results can you expect.

The current policy allows Indianapolis officers to give chase to anyone for any involvement in any crime. There really are no restrictions. This kind of wide-open policy may have played a role in the August 30^th chase-related deaths of two teenagers, D’airres Hightower, 15, and Brandon Palmer, 19. And while this case has brought the policy back into the limelight, the Public Safety Director Frank Straub has said “We don’t want to just change something because we are reacting to a recent event.”

Straub says that officials are considering changes and that a decision should be reached within 2 to 3 months. But he also says they are being cautious in considering “what, if any, rule changes are appropriate here.”

Many large cities have restrictions on who can be chased and for what reasons, even limiting speeds and the amount of time a chase can proceed. In Orlando, for example, cops can only give chase when the suspect is wanted in connection with a crime of violence, not a property crime.

The Chief of Police favors a rule change and says his officers could get used to new policies. But the president of the Indianapolis chapter of the Fraternal Order of Police said that officers would see the change as “surrender” and many would oppose it. You would think police officers would favor any policies that can save their own lives and make the rules more clear cut.

If the chase standards were tightened, officers would simply have to use other investigative techniques to catch up with the suspect at a later date. From license plate numbers to the likelihood that the police already know who they are chasing, it’s not likely that a “getaway car” would get away for good.

Most frequently, the people who give chase are pulled over on a traffic stop and have one reason or another to not stick around. They have a warrant or they have something in the vehicle they don’t want discovered. In some cities, police would not pursue these people. In Indianapolis, however, they would.

The bottom line is: the police will likely catch you if you bolt. They might not get you today but they will keep looking. If you have a warrant for your arrest or are wanted for questioning, sometimes the best move is to discuss your case with a defense lawyer before drawing it out any longer.

According to the Indianapolis Star, the chairwoman of the advisory board overseeing the audit, Linda Chezem, said they must “review the audit” to ensure the need justifies the cost, estimated to be more than $250,000. Essentially, she is saying an audit must be done of the audit before or even if it can move forward.

The problems within the crime lab involved false positives for drug tests. The panel found 10% of marijuana cases and 32% of cocaine cases that were reviewed did not meet scientific standards. In the 10% of marijuana cases, for instance, 61 were falsely reported as positive when there was no trace of the drug.

Chezem herself has said there is no way to know for sure how long it will take to review the audit and whether or not it will continue.

Needless to say, many are not happy with this decision–particularly because the findings of the audit could lead to overturned convictions.

None of the alcohol analysis from OWI cases handled by the Department of Toxicology have been reviewed yet and Larry Landis, the executive director of the Indiana Public Defender Council, indicates this abrupt stop in the audit without any indication of beginning the testing again “sounds to me like a cover-up.”

Alcohol cases were the most abundant in the lab and the Forensic Consultants, Inc.—tasked with conducting the audit—were just about to begin that aspect of the investigation when they were notified via email to immediately halt the review.

Alcohol cases aren’t only more prevalent, but those up for review in the audit were more likely to end in felony charges than those drug tests conducted, according to the Indy Star. Also, because only a trace of drugs has to be present, alcohol tests require knowing the substance is present and in what concentration, a far more in depth process.

Chezem points out that knowing there was false readings would only be the beginning and retesting would have to occur in order to prove there was any miscarriage of justice. And she may be right—retesting would be the most thorough, albeit expensive, way to rule out any wrongful convictions. But in her mind, this is all the more reason to stop and review the audit now.

A local defense lawyer states that while retesting may eventually be needed, that’s no reason to stop the paper reviews in progress now. These reveal the quality of the lab’s work overall. And issues found within the marijuana and cocaine cases indicate there would be more of the same issues within the alcohol cases since the same lab workers were conducting the tests.

Despite all of this, the audit has ceased and there’s no indication of what will happen next. It’s not out of the realm of possibilities that the state will allow the entire situation to be swept under the rug. In the meantime, people convicted on charges within the time period of the labs problems will be left to wonder if the evidence used in their case was handled appropriately or if they got an unfair shake.

How evidence is handled in a criminal case is crucial in ensuring you are treated fairly and your rights are protected as a defendant. If you are facing charges and have questions about the evidence against you, contact our Indiana defense attorneys today.

His role in collecting the forfeitures was a contracted one with the prosecutor’s office. Under that agreement he was entitled to 1/4^th of everything collected. The state supreme court, which ultimately decided his penalty, noted a serious conflict of interest when the same lawyer could be negotiating a plea agreement and a forfeiture arrangement in the same case, where he had a vested interest in the amount of money to be collected.

The ruling against him added that there were instances that the prosecutor turned a blind eye to possible ethical problems in the forfeiture arrangements in order to protect his potential income and continued pursuit of forfeited money and property.

When you are accused of a criminal offense, you can have your property confiscated by the state if it can be determined that they were obtained with illegal means or used for illegal ventures. A drug dealer’s car (purchased with drug money) is a simple example of this.

While the disciplinary committee recommended the prosecutor face a public reprimand, the state supreme court thought a suspension was more appropriate given the public’s perception of the case and the need for transparency and integrity within the prosecutor’s office.

Though the ruling admits he was negotiating plea agreements and forfeiture cases at the same time, they say there was no evidence that he “explicitly agreed to offer favorable treatment to a criminal defendant in exchange for money transferred,” through a forfeiture, according to the Indianapolis Star.

On the other hand, the court recognized the obvious when it added, “it would doubtless be evident to such a defendant, and to his or her attorney if represented, that prosecutorial discretion in how to proceed with the criminal case was held by one who stood to reap personal financial gain if the defendant agreed to the forfeiture of his or her assets.”

Interestingly, by law, all of the proceeds from criminal forfeitures are supposed to the state’s Common School Fund, not any law enforcement. But, it seems many prosecutor offices are pocketing some, if not all of the funds for themselves, calling them “law enforcement expenses.” In an effort to change this, or at least make it legal, lawmakers are working on changing the current law.

Criminal forfeitures add insult to injury. If you’re facing a criminal charge and the potential for years behind bars, the thought of losing your money and property can be another significant blow. Not sure if your property can be seized? Contact our attorneys today to discuss your case.

According to the Armed Career Criminal Act, a federal law, if someone is convicted for three violent felonies, they are to be subject to a 15 year mandatory minimum prison sentence. The defendant in the case had two prior violent felonies and his third conviction was for fleeing from police on a vehicle.

The Supreme Court ruled, in a 6 to 3 decision, that fleeing from the police in a vehicle did, in fact, constitute a violent felony, subjecting the defendant to the mandatory minimum sentence.

Though the Armed Career Criminal Act is a federal law, several states have similar laws on the books. The infamous Three Strikes laws are another example of cumulative convictions carrying harsher penalties.

In this case the Court’s majority determined that fleeing from the police in a vehicle puts the public and the police at risk. While not all of the justices agreed, the majority opinion stated that for every 100 vehicle pursuits, there are 4 injuries. Justice Scalia said the majority used statistics that had not “been tested in the adversary process” according to the New York Times.

Justices Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg disagreed with the ruling on other grounds, saying that Indiana had two other, more serious offenses under the same statute the defendant was charged under. These included flight from police that created a risk of serious injury. But because the defendant wasn’t charged with these more serious, violent offenses, they determined he should not be penalized for a violent offense.

Regardless, the majority ruling stands.

Automobiles are a potentially dangerous weapon and many criminal laws recognize them as such. Charges like Battery can be elevated to a Class C felony when there is a deadly weapon involved. In cases like this, a car would qualify as that deadly weapon.

This same rationale is used in making the penalties for drunk driving so severe. It’s the risk of hurting or killing someone that makes offenses like this so serious. Even if no injury occurs, you are still penalized for the possibility.

Whether you are charged with drunk driving or battery involving a deadly weapon, a criminal defense attorney can help.

The emails are those to and from the former acting director of the lab, Peter Method. A chemist, Method joined the lab in 2001. Some of the emails alerted Method to problems at the lab and even copied Michael Vasko, the chair of the medical schools Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology.

Many of the emails came from a lab supervisor who could not be quieted. Natividad Dumaual was quite vocal about problems at the lab as early as 2005. She had to be reprimanded at one point for saying the lab had only “one stinking machine” to a prosecutor. The reprimand was because her boss didn’t want to give any defense attorneys reason to doubt the integrity of the work being done.

She continued to complain to Method and Vasko, alerting them to many false negatives and saying “I don’t think I trust anything that is in the computer.” There were supposed false readings on cocaine, marijuana, alcohol, and even tests ran on a subject after he had killed another driver while operating his car under the influence of drugs.

Dumaual’s disdain and frustration showed in the emails when she wrote things like, “No matter how I tell our techs to be careful, if we are overwhelmed by samples/deadlines to meet…we are bound to make mistakes. I guess if this is acceptable to you and the department then I don’t have to worry.”

What is perhaps most interesting about the time period revealed within the emails is that the current audit is only looking at the years 2007 through 2009. In those cases already reviewed in the current audit, there has been an average of one flawed marijuana test result every 3.28 days and a false positive every 18 days.

Among the emails there were at least 26 bad test results reported to police, 12 of which were false positives, potentially working to convict possibly innocent people. On the other hand, there were 14 false negatives which could have prevented law enforcement from arresting offenders.

An in depth investigation into the lab’s practices is underway and we haven’t heard the end of it yet. Evidentiary integrity is crucial in a criminal case and the issues experienced at the Indiana Toxicology lab will prove just how bad practices can affect the meting out of justice.

The state toxicology lab has operated under Indiana University since 1957; it is a publically funded lab. And though around 85% of such labs are accredited assuring some level of adherence to standards, this one isn’t and has never been.

That fall (2008), Wagner met with members of the Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys Council and advised them that he was planning to do an audit. He got approval for the audit from his supervisor at Indiana University’s School of Medicine Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology after explaining his concerns.

It was after announcing the audit that some critics believe the IPAC should’ve taken action, at the very least alerting defense lawyers to the problems and possibly beginning their own investigation and audits.

Just a few months after beginning the audit in January of 2009, Wagner told prosecutors and law enforcement to not move to trial with test results that were processed between 2007 and 2008 without first alerting him so he could check the evidence and retest if necessary. He said he wasn’t completely confident being called to the stand on test results during that time period before he was named director.

Evidence analyzed by the lab was critical in the prosecution of everything from impaired driving cases to drug charges.

Again those present had an opportunity and some would argue a duty to tell defense lawyers and the public about the issues at hand. To date, however, prosecutors present at that meeting deny feeling like they were being told there was a significant problem with tests according to the Indianapolis Star.

It wasn’t until March 2010 that IPAC acknowledged the audit and some problems at the lab in a public manner. Following this acknowledgement, the governor’s council created an assessment team to not just look at the lab problems, but how those problems had been handled up until that point. Soon after, one of the directors of IPAC resigned.

This lab shakeup isn’t the first of its kind in the country and its impact is still yet unknown. Indiana lawmakers are rushing to change how the criminal evidence is handled. The Senate has voted to remove the lab from the direction of Indiana University and making it a separate state body and the bill has yet to pass the House.

There’s a good chance the lab issues will result in some cases being appealed and eventually thrown out altogether. About 200 letters are ready to be sent out, outlining specific cases in which evidence may have been flawed.

The handling of evidence from the time it is seen by law enforcement until a case goes to trial is crucial. If the integrity of the evidence is jeopardized in any manner, there’s a good chance it will be inadmissible in court.

If you are facing criminal charges, the integrity of the evidence against you should be analyzed in detail by your criminal defense attorney. If you have questions about your charges or are in need of counsel, contact our attorneys today.

According to the South Bend Tribune, this inmate was convicted of several drug charges. They included dealing in Schedule II controlled substances, possession of a Schedule IV, possession of marijuana and hashish, and two counts of possession of the chemical ingredients used to make methamphetamines. The most serious of these charges, the inmate claims, weren’t for meth making, merely an ebay business he had dealing in chemicals.

Regardless, his sentence is the thing at issue here—the judge sentenced him to 20 years. He suspended this 20 year sentence and ordered 20 years of probation. But, he stated that prison time would be a condition of probation.

Apparently the St. Joseph Superior Court judge wanted the man to do some hard time but wanted control over when he would be released.

A judge has the authority to change conditions of probation to suit the offender’s progress or problems while under supervision. Had he sentenced the man to a straight prison term, there wouldn’t be much flexibility. However, by making it a condition of probation, he could maintain control by determining when the man got released.

Immediately following sentencing, the judge told him that is was highly likely he would be out in one to two years depending on his progress while incarcerated. It’s going on three years since he was sentenced and the inmate is now filing suit.

Complicating the process is the fact that this inmate has filed several lawsuits and complaints while incarcerated. The local clerk’s office has a huge file on him and he thinks this may have something to do with why the judge hasn’t released him as promised.

The inmate has glowing recommendations from supervisors and staff within the Department of Corrections and fails to see why he hasn’t been released. But, the judge isn’t required to release him. As a matter of fact, he could keep him in there for the entire 20 years if he wanted.

Local officials from various agencies fall on either side of this argument, some stating the judge has good intentions while others, including DOC officials, state this judge’s practices are confusing and they refuse to comment.

Typically, if a judge wants you to serve a period of incarceration while on probation, it will be 90 days or  less in jail. According to the Tribune, these sort of sentences are unique to this particular judge and they have withstood the appeals processes, with courts siding on behalf of the judge.

The inmate states he is more concerned with his chemistry business upon release than he is about what year he will be allowed back into the community.

The marijuana bill will go before the full Senate and requests the state crime policy panel studies Indiana’s marijuana laws and makes recommendations as to the potential legalization of the substance. The criminal law committee advanced this measure with a 5 to 3 vote.

State Senator Karen Tallian (D Portage) sponsored the bill and has concerns about the money spent by the state and local Indiana governments on the enforcement of current marijuana laws. An unlikely supporter, conservative Representative Tom Knollman has multiple sclerosis and states he believes medical marijuana should be considered in the state.

He spends about $25,000 a year on pain medication, something he says isn’t always effective. He says “I hear that one of God’s plants is working to help ease the pain of multiple sclerosis.”

The meth bill will also go before the full Senate and would track the sale of common cold medicines via computer. Some law enforcement groups were hoping the committee would suggest prescriptions for medications containing pseudoephedrine but that wasn’t the case.

Instead, if passed, the meth bill would require drug stores to track the sales of such medications on computers and report attempts by people to purchase more than the current allowable amount. Under current law, where such cold medications are limited, meth labs initially fell in the state. However, there has recently been a resurgence as meth makers find new ways around the restrictions.

A local former Sheriff states “We’ve forced the bad guys to expand their criminal enterprise by bringing more people in buying their lawful amount of pseudoephedrine.” And he’s right. While they used to just buy up the medication, they now enlist others to help, sometimes sending multiple people into multiple drug stores in exchange for drugs.

Currently, Indiana drug laws are some of the harshest in the country. Being caught with methamphetamines, no matter how much, is a felony. Even if you only have a quarter-gram, you could face up to 3 years in prison and a felony record that will haunt you for life.

There are many factors that go into determining the charge you face and your potential penalty. Though the type of drug and amount are often the first you think of, your criminal history and other factors can play a role as well. If you’re facing drug charges and in need of an experienced defense lawyer, contact our attorneys today for a consultation on your case.