Indiana State Ethics Commission, Office of Inspector General, and David Thomas, in his Official Capacity as Inspector General v. Patricia Sanchez, 18 N.E.3d 988

Patricia Sanchez, former Director at the Indiana Commission of Hispanic/Latino Affairs (DWD), was terminated in January 2010 amid allegations of misconduct.
DWD reported missing state property (a television, luggage cart, and label maker) last seen in Sanchez’s possession; items were reportedly used for personal purposes.
OIG Special Agent Coffin obtained and executed a search warrant in March 2010 and recovered the three items and a state phone cable; criminal charges followed but were dismissed after a suppression ruling.
The Indiana Office of Inspector General filed an ethics complaint alleging violation of 42 IAC 1-5-12 (unauthorized personal use of state property). The State Ethics Commission found probable cause, held a public adjudicative hearing, and concluded Sanchez violated the rule, barring her from future State executive branch employment.
The Marion Superior Court vacated the Commission’s report and lifted the sanction; the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court. The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer and reversed the trial court, upholding the Commission’s decision and sanction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Double jeopardy	Administrative proceeding prosecuted same conduct after criminal case → violates double jeopardy	No jury was impaneled in criminal case; no jeopardy attached; proceeding independent	Rejected Sanchez’s claim — no jeopardy attached and proceeding permissibly separate
Preclusive effect of criminal court’s suppression ruling (probable cause)	Criminal court found search warrant stale → that probable-cause ruling is binding on Commission	Ethics inquiry different (unauthorized personal use vs. theft); res judicata/stare decisis inapplicable; distinct issues	Rejected Sanchez’s res judicata argument — different issues, so suppression ruling not binding
Use of evidence obtained in suppressed search (exclusionary rule)	Commission relied on search fruits; if exclusionary rule applies, decision lacks substantial evidence	Even excluding search-derived evidence, independent eyewitness and documentary evidence supported violation	Held substantial independent evidence existed; Commission’s decision supported on the record
Excessive or unconstitutional sanction	Bar from future state executive branch employment is cruel and unusual / disproportionate	Sanction authorized by statute; Commission has discretion and remedial latitude	Rejected; sanction within statutory authority and Commission’s discretion

Filter Specialists, Inc. v. Brooks, 906 N.E.2d 835 (Ind. 2009) (standard of review for judicial review of agency decisions)
Regester v. Indiana State Bd. of Nursing, 703 N.E.2d 147 (Ind. 1998) (appellate review gives deference to agency findings; affirm unless clearly erroneous)
Becker v. State, 992 N.E.2d 697 (Ind. 2013) (elements and purpose of res judicata)
Livingston v. State, 544 N.E.2d 1364 (Ind. 1989) (jeopardy attaches when jury is impaneled and sworn)
In re Mears, 723 N.E.2d 873 (Ind. 2000) (professional disciplinary proceedings independent from criminal prosecutions)
Ghosh v. Indiana State Ethics Comm’n, 930 N.E.2d 23 (Ind. 2010) (Commission discretion in crafting remedies for ethics violations)
Ind. State Ethics Comm’n v. Sanchez, 997 N.E.2d 16 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (intermediate appellate decision in this matter)