944 N.E.2d 16
Ind. Ct. App.2011Background
- City issued fifteen ordinance citations after Boss's dogs attacked a pedestrian and a helper.
- Boss admitted twelve violations; three were dismissed; fines and costs assessed totaling $1,264.
- Boss surrendered the three dogs and agreed to permanent injunctive provisions regarding animal control.
- State charged Boss with six counts of dog biting resulting in serious bodily injury and six counts of harboring a non-immunized dog.
- Boss moved to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds; trial court denied; interlocutory appeal granted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does ordinance enforcement constitute punishment for double jeopardy purposes? | Boss argues penalties are criminal punishment despite civil form. | State argues penalties are civil fines under municipal code; not punitive. | Ordinances are civil; no double jeopardy bar to criminal prosecution. |
| Are the Indianapolis ordinances punitive under Mendoza-Martinez factors? | Boss contends the penalties are punitive and punitive intent should negate civil status. | State contends seven Mendoza-Martinez factors favor non-punitive civil purpose. | Fines and injunctions are non-punitive; factors support civil purpose. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. 93 (Supreme Court 1997) (punishment requires clearest proof to override civil label)
- Kennedy Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (Supreme Court 1963) (seven-factor test for civil vs. punitive sanctions)
- United States v. Ward, 448 U.S. 242 (Supreme Court 1980) (statutory penalty labeling; intent-effects test)
- Mitsch v. City of Hammond, 234 Ind. 285 (Indiana Supreme Court 1955) (local penalties duplicating state criminal penalties prohibited)
- Biedinger v. City of East Chicago, 129 Ind.App. 42 (Indiana Appellate Court 1958) (ordinances vs. statutes; civil vs. criminal penalties)
- Clevenger v. Town of Rushville, 90 Ind. 258 (Indiana Supreme Court 1883) (historical civil nature of ordinance penalties)
- State v. Davis, 898 N.E.2d 281 (Indiana Supreme Court 2008) (abuse of discretion standard for dismissal of charging information)