IS IT TRUE the recent political fundraiser for the Holcomb-Crouch for Governor ticket raised around $200,000 plus? …all we can say is “WOW”?

IS IT TRUE that the MBE/WBE Utilization Board’s purpose is to lawfully promote economic development by the utilization of Minority-owned Business Enterprises (MBE) and Women-owned Business Enterprises (WBE), by City and County departments/boards and the Evansville Vanderburgh School Corporation, as prime contractors and subcontractors in contracts for purchases and construction projects.  …4th Ward City Councilwomen Connie Robinson feels that the new Downtown Convention Hotel Developer/Builder hasn’t given MBE/WBE businesses there fair share of the Hotel project?  …if Ms. Robinson is correct we wonder why the MBE/WBE Utilization Board hasn’t taken the new Downtown Convention Hotel Developer/Builder to legal task?

IS IT TRUE we are hearing that the popular Vanderburgh County Commissioner Bruce Ungethiem will be co-hosting a political fundraiser along with former U.S. Congressman John Hostettler and many others political movers and shakers of Vanderburgh County politics in about 10 days for County Commissioner candidate Sean Selby (R)?   … this event is going to be held at the home of Mr. Republican of Vanderburgh County John Dunn and his wife Gail, who graciously agree to host this big ticket political fundraiser?

IS IT TRUE that recentley 3rd Ward City Councilwoman Anna Hargis CPA recently contacted former City Councilman John Friend CPA to ask him to explain to her about a few item concerning the proposed 2017 budget? …when he explained that the Employee Health Care costs are going to be catastrophic to the 2017 budget she went into panic mode? …that Mr. Friend hasn’t heard from her since then?  …all we can say is one can run but can’t hide from Mr. Friends budgetary wisdom?

IS IT TRUE that TIF districts are flushed with money at the expense of the General Funds?

IS IT TRUE that corporate “food stamps” (tax abatements) is at the expense of the General fund?

IS IT TRUE if you “Buy or List” a home with Alex Jarvis a sales professional with ERA Reality in October he will rake your leaves for a year?

IS IT TRUE that some of our posters feel we have too many local office holders in the real estate business?  …we wonder if you agree with them?

IS IT TRUE some of our readers feel have too many local office holders that are connected in the education profession?  …do you agree that Vanderburgh County Council and Evansville City Council have  to many members that are active and retired school teachers?

IS IT TRUE that its been alleged during the past 11 years, Indiana governors agenda’s has destroyed Indiana’s teachers profession?

IS IT TRUE we welcome any other poster who would like to submit any IS IT TRUES for us to publish?

EDITORS FOOTNOTE: Todays READERS POLL question is: Do you agree with Dan McGinn, Mayor Winnecke and City Council that they should reduce the Homestead Property Tax Credit from 8 percent to 6 percent for 2017?

Please take time and read our newest feature articles entitled “BIRTHDAYS, HOT JOBS” and “LOCAL SPORTS” posted in our sections.

If you would like to advertise in the CCO please contact us City-County Observer@live.com.

City County Observer has been serving our community for 15 years.

Copyright 2015 City County Observer. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistribute.

Court Affirms Suppression Of Drug Evidence Found In Jail Strip Search

by Jennifer Nelson for IndianaLawyer

A trial court correctly granted the motion of a man arrested in Marion County to suppress drug evidence found in his buttocks after he was stripped search as a result of a misdemeanor battery charge, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed.

Dejon Pitchford was arrested on a preliminary charge of battery May 8, 2015, and taken to the Marion County Arrestee Processing Center. Sheriff’s deputy Mark Bunch conducted a strip search of Pitchford pursuant to department policy, which authorizes a strip search if one is charged with a crime of violence. Bunch considered battery to be a crime of violence.

After Pitchford had stripped down, he refused to cooperate with the search in which his buttocks would be spread apart. During his resistance, deputies noticed a plastic bag sticking out of his buttocks. The contents of the bag tested positive for cocaine and heroin. This led to felony drug charges and a misdemeanor resisting law enforcement charge.

Pitchford filed a motion to suppress, arguing the deputies had not reasonable suspicion to justify the search of a misdemeanor offender. The trial court granted the motion in November.

The COA affirmed, finding Edwards v. State, 759 N.E.2d 626 (Ind. 2001), controls. That court held routine, warrantless strip searches of misdemeanor arrestees, even when incident to a lawful arrest, violate Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution and the Fourth Amendment.

The state argued that Edwards has been abrogated by the United States Supreme Court decision in Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of Burlington County, 132 S. Ct. 1510 (2012), in which the majority court held the Fourth Amendment doesn’t prohibit strip searches of arrested persons before they enter a jail’s general population and also that people arrested for minor offenses are not excluded.

Judge Paul Mathias noted that even though Florence now allows the strip search under the Fourth Amendment, Edwards still requires the search pass muster under Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution.

“The clear holding in Edwards requires that a warrantless strip search of a misdemeanor arrestee be justified by reasonable suspicion, based on the totality of the circumstances, that the arrestee is concealing weapons or contraband. No such suspicion was reported in the present case, nor do we read Edwards as permitting the warrantless strip search of all defendants arrested for violent offenses,” Mathias wrote. “Here, Pitchford was arrested for misdemeanor battery, and nothing about the circumstances surrounding his offense or his arrest support a reasonable suspicion that he was concealing weapons or contraband. In short, the State has not established that the trial court’s decision was contrary to law.”

The case is State of Indiana v. Dejon Pitchford, 49A04-1512-CR-2173.

COA Vacates Public Defender, Probation Fees For Indigent ManOliivia Covington for www.theindianalawyer.com

The Indiana Court of Appeals has vacated an order for a man convicted of public intoxication and found to be indigent to pay more than $600 in public defender and probation fees.

Andre Coleman was arrested on June 13, 2015, for public intoxication after Indianapolis Airport Police found him asleep in his car and under the influence of alcohol along the airport’s North Access Road. Coleman failed multiple field sobriety tests before his arrest.

After the Marion Superior Court found Coleman to be indigent, the court appointed an attorney at public expense to represent Coleman with no reimbursement requirement. He was convicted of Class B public intoxication in September 2015 and was ordered to serve 365 days in jail with 363 days suspended to probation and to take an alcohol and drug treatment class.

The trial court found Coleman indigent as to fines and costs, but when Coleman asked if he would have to pay for the alcohol and drug treatment class, the court responded “Yes, yeah” without inquiring about his financial situation. The court also did not list a public defender fee or any other court costs or fees in its sentencing order. The order listed his total monetary obligation as $0, and the order of probation did not designate an amount owed for probation user fees.

However, one day after sentencing, Coleman was charged with $640 in court fees, including a $50 supplemental public defender fee and a $250 fee for the drug and alcohol services, which he appealed.

In Andre C. Coleman v. State of Indiana, 49A02-1511-CR-1999, the Court of Appeals vacated all fees against Coleman, writing that the imposition of the $50 public defender fee appeared to be an error on the part of the probation department and that the trial court never actually imposed that fee on Coleman in either its sentencing order or its order of probation.

Similarly, the Court of Appeals wrote that the record did not show that the Marion Superior Court imposed the probation fees, but that the trial court had said at the sentencing hearing that Coleman would be found indigent as to fines and costs. Thus, the Court of appeals vacated Coleman’s probation fees and remanded to the trial court to hold an indigency hearing.

Finally, the Court of Appeals also vacated the $250 fee imposed on Coleman, pending an indigency hearing. If the hearing shows that Coleman is able to pay the probation fees, then the trial court will be instructed to correct the order to reflect that Coleman owes $150 for the alcohol and drug services, corresponding with his Class B misdemeanor conviction. The $250 fee would only be imposed for a Class A misdemeanor.