« Ind. Law - "Wineries ‘live with’ new shipping rules" | Main | Ind. Courts - Another update on: Montgomery County judges issue mandate for staff raises »
Monday, November 27, 2006
Ind. Courts - Sex offender sues Plainfield for anonymity
Richard D. Walton of the Indianapolis Star reports:
His name and address are listed on a sex-offender registry, available to anyone with a computer. But in a legal challenge demanding that he be allowed to visit Plainfield recreational facilities, he goes by "John Doe."On Wednesday, the Indiana Court of Appeals will consider whether the Marion County man, convicted of child exploitation and possession of child pornography, can remain anonymous in pursuing his suit or, as Plainfield maintains, must reveal his identity in making his allegations in court.
The plaintiff sued the Hendricks County town over a 2002 ordinance banning people on the registry from public parks and recreational areas. Saying the prohibition violates the U.S. Constitution, the offender claims disclosing his name would put him and his young son at risk of harm from vengeful citizens.
Plainfield contends the plaintiff has not adequately substantiated that a threat exists or overcome the widely held presumption that litigants should reveal their identities.There is a long tradition in U.S. courts of openness and disclosure, says Town Attorney Melvin Daniel. "You need to step up and let people know who you are and what your reasons are."
The appeal -- the lawsuit is on hold pending a ruling -- represents one of the few times in Indiana in which a court has been asked to define the standard by which plaintiffs should be allowed to sue anonymously. * * *
However the Indiana appeals court rules, both sides agree the decision could bear significance far beyond Hendricks County.
"No court in Indiana, of which Plainfield is aware, has established a test or formula to be employed when determining whether to allow a litigant to proceed anonymously," the city said in its court documents.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on November 27, 2006 06:10 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions