*1 designating purpose the management cash for trust account standards set forth in the document listed above. the matter to which the withdrawal or any 4. agree report The CPA must attributable. the withdrawal was negative respon- information about the Discipline: have considered and now handling Disciplin- dent's of funds to the discipline that Re- approve proposed ary respondent's during Commission have sub- spondent and the Commission period probation. mitted to this Court. respondent materially 5. If the violates 1, 2006, Therefore, effective November probation, the terms and conditions of Ivanovich, Roseann P. is sus- respondent, Disciplinary Commission shall move a practice from the of law for pended respondent's probation revoke under ninety days, stayed, all and period 28(17.2). R. In Admis. Disc. the event probation on respondent placed revoked, probation respon- her (18) months, subject suspended eighteen dent's law license will be to the follow- ing terms and conditions: which, period ninety days, after in order to have her law license reinstat- respondent 1. The must maintain her ed, required she will be to seek rein- prac- account consistent with the trust pursuant provisions statement forth in the procedures tices and set §§ Admis. Disc. Rules 4 and 18. document entitled: "Trust Account proceeding Costs of this are assessed Management: Handling Client against respondent. Funds," Third-Party available on-line http://www.in.govljudiciary! at: of this is directed to The Clerk Court discipline/does/trustguide.pdf. respon- forward notice of this order to the attorney; dent and her to the Indiana respondent procure 2. The must Commission; Supreme Disciplinary Court CPA, approved services of a and, provided to all other entities as Commission, periodic reports to create 23(8)(d). § Admis.Disc.R. each trust account held the re- spondent part practice. as of her law All Justices concur. reports 3. The CPA must meet the fol- lowing criteria: original report
a. The of each shall provided Supreme be to the Indiana Disciplinary Commission with attorney. copy to her HOLCOMB, Appellant Jason W. (Plaintiff below), due on or reports b. The before fourth, day month on the the first seventh, tenth, thirteenth and sixteenth PETROLEUM, WALTER'S DIMMICK date of this following
months Order. INC., Glynell Kuhn, Appellees report respondent's A final trust (Defendants below). account is due no later than two weeks No. 76S04-0604-CV-138. probationary to the end of her prior of Indiana. Supreme Court period. Dec. reports
c. The shall evaluate the re- management account spondent's trust against
practices procedures *3 Wheeler, IN, Angola, At-
Christopher J. torney Appellant. for Bend, IN, Konopa Aigotti, Claire South Hearn, IN, Highland, Edward Attor- W. neys Appellees.
SULLIVAN, Justice. police A gas reported station clerk plate of a the make and license number off vehicle she said had driven charges paying gasoline. against After dismissed, the owner of this vehicle were arrest, the owner sued the clerk for false defamation, abuse imprisonment, false A available process. qualified privilege to law enforcement of- for communications circum- protects the clerk in these ficers stances.
Background Kuhn, 3, 2002, an Glynell December
On "Spee-D-Mart" gas sta- employee at Dimmick Petro- tion owned Walter's leum, ("Dimmick"), reported to the Inc. County that a customer Steuben plate license operating green Jeep with had off without number 680670L driven Holcomb, Jason paying for his green Jeep plate with license who owned 680670L, arrested number gasoline theft. charged reported with were even- charges against The Holcomb qualified protected then sued enforcement tually dismissed. Holeomb v. Paul Harris Stores and, theory respondeat Conn Dimmick, arrest, Inc., (Ind.Ct.App. false for false superior, defamation, abuse imprisonment, 1982), trans. denied.
process.
privi
otherwise
communication
granted
The trial court
leged
privileged
can lose its
status-it
Dimmick,
Kuhn and
favor of
to be
privilege
this reason the
said
law,
that as a matter of
Kuhn's
holding
plaintiff
meets
bur
"qualified"-if
by a
protected
qualified
statements were
privilege
that the
has been
proving
den of
reports
that attaches to
to law
Bals,
As the or Discussion privilege" suggests, privilege such does change quality the actionable of the protects qualified privilege published, merely but rebuts the words good made in faith on "communications imputed in inference of malice is any subject party matter in which the appro- the absence of In an the communication has an interest making case, may a trier of fact deter- priate duty, in to which he has a or reference by moral, privilege mine the was abused exces- private, legal, or either public either social, publication, by use of the occasion sive person having or if made to a by lack improper purpose, for an or of duty." or Bals v. corresponding interest in truth grounds belief or for belief (Ind. Verduzco, 1353, 600 N.E.2d 1356 although of what is said. And the term 1992). dispute, a factual In the absence of in ques frequently applied viewing "malice" is applicability privilege of the acts, appears court. it "the essence of the tion of law to be determined such society's having concept speaker's spite To interest in is not the but his promote Id. privileged by going of the occasion reported, crimes communications to law abuse Hosp. Corp. designated as in 1. See Health & Marion Co. v. material consideration of Gaither, 251, 589, 272 595 summary judgment. Ind. 397 opposition to The Court (1979) (noting "a in favor of an Appeals of found that the trial court did not employee requires judgment in favor of his striking des- abuse its discretion in Holcomb's employer employer's liability when the ignation videotape of the because Holcomb solely predicated upon the acts said em- lay failed to tender and a foundation for the ployee"). videotape. summarily affirm the Court of Appellate issue. Ind. Rule on this appealed also court's Holcomb trial 58(A). striking videotape a surveillance that he had
107
491, 209
239
Wimberly, 357 Mo.
S.W.2d
purposes
beyond
scope
Co.,
(1948);
Clothing
Davis v. Weil
367
exists."
privilege
which
(Mo.App.1963);
19
Jensen v.
SW.2d
(ci-
661,
(Ind.Ct.App.1980)
673
409 N.E.2d
Barnett,
429, 134
53
178 Neb.
NW.2d
omitted).
tations
(1965);
Galvin,
331,
Pearson v.
253 Or.
case, Holeomb does not
present
In the
(1969).
Am.
If the attention of an offi- one directs village or the town marshal or beat a supposes to what he to be breach cer majesty of represents constable officer, peace, of the and the many whom for rea- the law and to direction, offender on other arrests may of counsel be sons the advice for what he as- responsibility his own unavailable, tell his troubles and to an committed in his sumes to be offence officer, and to trust difficulties to such nothing did presence, person who of the power to the and discretion more than to communicate the facts constituted authorities to se- legally impris- is not Hable for false the officer rights him the which the law cure for onment, arrest un- though even guarantees him. lawful. Mellon, Accord, v. 41 Cal.2d Turner Jones, 41, Ind. 20 N.E. v. 118
Veneman (1953). 45, 15, 257 P.2d 17-18 (1889) (citation omitted). 644, 645-46 Conn, (quoting at 198-99 439 N.E.2d authority for this There is substantial Tielsch, 564, Wash.App. 544 McCord v. proposition, quotation as illustrated this (1975)). 56, P.2d Washington case that the from a State of opinion in in Appeals of included its case, In Kubn noth "[did] this v. Paul Harris Stores: Conn than version of the ing [her] more detail policeman to a and ask for his assis Liability imposed will not be when the facts tance, leaving it to the officer to determine nothing more than detail defendant does response." Id. As policeman appropriate what is the his version of the facts to assistance, reported po Kuhn to the leaving supra, it to set forth and ask for his operating green ap is the lice that a customer the officer to determine what plate number 680670L Jeep at least where his with license propriate response, gaso his paying off without pre of the facts does not had driven representation with the driver's presented offi line. intelligent vent the exercise of the When Holcomb, Kuhn identified photo license of Accord, v. cer's discretion. Snider case, drive off person him as the same she saw there is none. is in fact the and here of the truth is disregard That was And a reckless for his paying conclusion, given in the extent of her involvement not a reasonable the entire ap- no more than person physical who does Kuhn Holcomb's matter. described color, To use and li- this does not abuse vehicle make and pearance, helpful formulation of the Court That is too plate precision. with cense Roach, in such behavior Appeals Elliott to reck- much of a coincidence attribute beyond seope "go[] summary judgment Accordingly, does lessness. exists," 409 for which purposes granted. appropriately purposes at one of those be Conclusion safety by facilitating ing public enhanced the trial affirm the criminal act investigation suspected grant to its decision to respect court with make ivity.3 To hold otherwise would Kuhn and summary judgment in favor of activity criminal re persons suspect who summarily affirm the deci- Dimmick. We (or specu provide specific luctant to even the issue Appeals of the Court of sion lative) be information to law enforcement referred to footnote exposing themselves cause risk liability. civil SHEPARD, C.J., BOEHM, J., case, In the Court of took concur. that there was a issue position DICKSON, J., separate dissents with to whether or not the as RUCKER, J., joins. opinion in which were statements for belief made without belief or DICKSON, Justice, dissenting. *6 position truth. is also the their This summary parties moving for As the by Specifically, here. taken dissent it to judgment, was the defendants' burden at two factual they say that there are least any genuine the absence of issue establish possibilities preclude judg- that issue, a determinative of material first, intentionally that "Kuhn and ment: specifically here: whether Kuhn exceeded falsely reported culprit," Holcomb as the privilege by making her statement second, report or that Kuhn made her belief, belief, police grounds or truth." disregard "with reckless in its truth. Although they logical possibilities, are they by Evidence before the trial court on sum- supported we do not think that mary judgment included Kuhn's assertion presents the record. Holcomb no evidence recognized regular that Holcomb as a suggesting possibility that either occurred. she wrongly All he offers is that he was identi- (contrary to Holeomb's claim customer that he had never before been in the store enough, fied. If that were it would swal- always pos- county), receipts it or the store records and low the because gasoline allegedly that sto- indicating intentionally that a sible defendant until maliciously randomly pumped selected len Holcomb was targeted away, sug- Holcomb drove and facts reporting. Overcoming victim for false after police that Kuhn did not contact privilege requires gesting some evidence that this granted, (Ind.Ct.App.2005), course, No. 1501- 3. Of law enforcement has certain re- transfer 0606-CV-239, (June 28, sponsibilities once such information is re- LEXIS 565 2006 Ind. ceived, scope 2006). of which this Court is now Holt, considering in Row alleged theft of until an hour after factual raises at least two evidence
Such summary judg- preclude possibilities that report police ment: Kuhn's truth, disregard with reckless mistakenly gasoline stolen or intentionally pumped by Kuhn or or intentionally party, third culprit. as the falsely reported Holcomb event, have In either Kuhn would exceed- privilege by making her statement ed the belief, or belief, in truth. its is-
Because of the existence of fact, I believe sues incorrectly granted trial court the defen- summary judgment. dants' motion reasons, respectfully I dissent. For these RUCKER, J., concurs. Terry KINSLOW, Individually and as *7 Representative
Personal Estate Kinslow, Deceased, of Marshall Lee Appellant-Plaintiff, INSURANCE COMPANY GEICO Taylor, Appellees- Lucille Defendants. No. 49A04-0604-CV-197. of Indiana. Court of Dec.