Pillar Law Group LLP

From Parent to Bystander? How POA Keeps You Involved After 18

2025-07-29T04:12:21Z

The thought of your 18-year-old, newly minted, high school graduate sitting down with an attorney to make an estate plan may seem a little strange. After all, they have no assets to divide and no spouse or children to provide for. However, as a young adult heading out into an unpredictable and sometimes dangerous world, there are two vital “estate planning documents” that young adults should have in place before heading to college, or wherever life may take them.

1. Medical Power of Attorney

In the State of Indiana, eighteen is a significant age in which children become adults. That means that on their eighteenth birthday your child has control over their own medical decisions, and as their parent, you lose access to their protected medical information. As a parent sending your child off to college, a medical emergency involving your child is your worst nightmare. While unlikely, appendicitis and car accidents can happen. If an emergency arises, the best way to step-in, gather information, and help make medical decisions for your child is for them to execute a Medical Power of Attorney when they turn eighteen.

2. Financial Power of Attorney – sometimes referred to as a Durable or General Power of Attorney.

Along the same lines, having the financial assistance of a parent can be very helpful to our kids as they launch into adulthood. A Financial Power of Attorney, if execute correctly, can do just that. There are many financial decisions that are thrust upon young adults when they turn eighteen. Whether buying a car, applying for a credit card, enrolling in college, or signing a lease, there may be instances when a young adult needs their parent to communicate directly with a third party on the child’s behalf. Emergency situations can also necessitate a parent stepping in to handle a child’s financial affairs. Keep in mind that a parent must always act in the child’s best interest and should never exceed the power given in the document. If your child desires to execute either of these documents, they need to be the one in control of the process. They will be the “client” in the attorney-client relationship, and they should make the decision as to who their “agents” in both documents will be. You should never attempt to force or coerce your child (or anyone else) into signing Powers of Attorney – it must be a decision they make on their own accord with a full understanding of the power these documents convey. If you child does decide they would like to execute Powers of Attorney, please contact our office for a consultation.

Summary Judgment Ruling: A Personal Debt or a Shareholder’s Obligation?

2023-08-22T07:20:00Z

A recent summary judgment ruling sheds light on the importance of reading releases and the distinction between personal and corporate debts. The dispute revolved around whether the defendant owed the plaintiffs $128,538 as a personal debt, or whether the amount, purportedly owed by the defendant, was covered by a release signed by the plaintiffs. The dispute originated from the sale of two closely held corporations. The plaintiffs and the defendant were shareholders in the corporations. After the sale had been negotiated, the plaintiffs requested payment of a prior unrelated debt from the defendant and the other minority shareholders. After several meetings, all the shareholders agreed they would be responsible for their proportional share of the prior debt. All the shareholders, including the plaintiffs and defendant, signed a spreadsheet that recognized the buyer was purchasing 55% of the company at closing, with the remaining 45% to be paid over a four-year period, contingent upon the achievement of certain performance targets. Due to the failure to meet the targets, the defendant ultimately received only a nominal $1.00 for his remaining 45% interest. Subsequently the plaintiffs sued the buyer and the defendant over funds owed to them from the sale. The plaintiffs settled with the buyer and signed a release including all shareholders of the two purchased corporations. The plaintiffs then contended the defendant personally owed them $128,538, and the debt was not covered by the release. The court determined there were no documents describing the debt as a separate personal obligation of the defendant. Applying Indiana Trial Rule 56, the court held there was no genuine issue of material fact to be resolved by a trial. The court ruled that the debt in question was not a personal debt but rather a shareholder's obligation, payable upon receipt of proceeds from the anticipated buyout of shares. The plaintiffs had previously settled with the buyer and released all the shareholders from any claims that predated the sale. The court concluded that the release covered the defendant and as the defendant received only a nominal payment for his remaining 45%, summary judgment was appropriate. In conclusion, the court granted a summary judgment in favor of the defendant, thereby delineating the differences between personal debts and obligations arising from shareholder agreements. The ruling underscores the importance of clear documentation in establishing the nature of financial obligations, especially in complex corporate transactions. The ruling is also a reminder that any document containing a release should be reviewed by competent legal counsel.

The Limitations of Equity: A Closer Look at Probate Law

2023-06-08T06:43:14Z

Equitable remedies are intended to supplement and complement existing law, not to override it. This principle is foundational to the legal system, ensuring consistency and predictability, which are both necessary to uphold confidence in the rule of law. If the law needs to be changed, it is primarily the role of the legislature, not the courts, to do so.

In Indiana, equitable remedies such as reformation, constructive trusts, equitable liens, and injunctions are available in probate cases. Those remedies are typically confined to cases involving fraud, breach of duty, or wrongful acquisition of property. Courts do not usually provide equitable relief to override clear statutory rules. It is the legislative judgement that dictates how courts should resolve disputes concerning decedents’ estates.

Courts refrain from exercising equitable powers when there is adequate remedy in existing law. This principle, that "equity follows the law", has been a foundational part of Indiana law for over a century and means that when substantial justice can be accomplished by following the law, courts generally will not exercise their equitable powers.

This general principle applies to probate cases. When there is a remedy under the Probate Code to address an alleged harm, courts will generally not fashion an equitable remedy. For example, the law permits personal representatives to maintain suits in court for the recovery of possession property of the estate, or for trespass or waste committed on the estate. This provision, in fact, dates back prior to the 1953 enactment of the Indiana Probate Code. If the personal representative does not file a claim within the estate, courts will generally not impose an equitable remedy as a substitute to the existing procedure.

In conclusion, although equitable remedies sometimes serve to deliver justice where statutes may fall short, their use is generally restricted to cases when adequate legal remedies do not exist. When a specific remedy is available within the Probate Code, it is not appropriate or necessary to apply an equitable remedy.

Understanding the Indiana Unsafe Building Law: An Overview

2023-06-02T20:32:22Z

Every state has laws and regulations in place to ensure the safety and well-being of its residents. In Indiana, one such law is the Unsafe Building Law. The Indiana Unsafe Building Law, which is outlined in the Indiana Code 36-7-9, is designed to provide a safeguard against properties that harm the community when they are not adequately maintained. This blog post aims to shed light on the law's main provisions and what it means for the residents of Indiana.

The Indiana Unsafe Building Law gives local authorities the power to act against unsafe properties. This can include issuing fines and penalties, mandating repairs, or even ordering a building's demolition if it poses a substantial danger.

What Constitutes an Unsafe Building?

According to Indiana Code, a building can be deemed "unsafe" if it falls under one or more of the following categories:

Buildings that are dangerous to life due to defects. This could include issues like faulty wiring, unstable structures, or a lack of necessary safety features.
Buildings that are a fire hazard. This might involve faulty electrical systems, improper storage of flammable materials, or other issues that increase the risk of a fire.
Buildings that are unsafe or unsanitary due to inadequate maintenance, dilapidation, damage, or abandonment.
Buildings that are not provided with adequate exit facilities.
Buildings that are likely to cause or contribute to blight, disease, vagrancy, or danger to children in the area.

What Actions Can Be Taken?

When a building is found to be unsafe, the local authority (usually the building commissioner or a similar official) has a responsibility to act. These actions can vary based on the severity and nature of the building's condition. They can include:

Ordering the owner to repair the building.
If the owner refuses or fails to make necessary repairs, the local authority can make the repairs themselves and charge the costs back to the owner.
In extreme cases, if the building poses a significant threat and cannot be reasonably repaired, the local authority may order the building to be demolished.

Appealing an Unsafe Building Order

Owners of a building declared unsafe have a right to appeal the order. They can do so by submitting a written appeal to the local authority within a set period of time after receiving the order. The appeal will then be heard by a hearing authority, which will decide whether to uphold, modify, or overturn the order.

Conclusion

The Indiana Unsafe Building Law plays a crucial role in maintaining the safety and quality of our communities. It ensures that all buildings – whether they're homes, businesses, or public spaces – meet basic safety standards and don't pose unnecessary risks. Understanding this law can help Indiana residents better navigate their rights and responsibilities when it comes to property ownership and community living.

This post provides an overview of the Indiana Unsafe Building Law, but it's important to remember that the specifics of the law can change. Always consult with a legal professional or local authority for the most accurate and up-to-date information.

Medicare and Medicaid

2020-09-29T16:49:05Z

Medicare and Medicaid are very different. Medicaid is a federal program for low-income, financially needy people, set up by the federal government and administered differently in each state. Medicare was created to deal with the high medical costs that older and disabled citizens face relative to the rest of the population - especially troublesome given their reduced earning power. However, eligibility for Medicare is not tied to individual need. Rather, it is an entitlement program; you are entitled to it because you or your spouse paid for it through Social Security taxes. The information below provides the basics of each program. Medicare

Who is Eligible: Medicare covers almost everyone 65 or older, certain people on Social Security disability, and some people with permanent kidney failure.
Who Administers the Program: Medicare is a federal program whose rules are the same all over the country. Medicare information is available at your Social Security office.
Coverage Provided:

o Medicare hospital insurance (Part A) provides basic coverage for hospital stays and posthospital nursing facility and home health care. o Medicare medical insurance (Part B) pays most basic doctor and laboratory costs, and some outpatient medical services, including medical equipment and supplies, home health care, and physical therapy. o Medicare prescription drug coverage (Part D) pays some of the costs of prescription medications.

Costs to Consumer: You must pay a yearly deductible for both Medicare Part A and Part B, and make hefty co-payments for extended hospital stays. Under Part B, you must pay the 20% of doctors' bills Medicare does not pay, and sometimes up to 15% more. Part B also charges a monthly premium. Under Part D, you must pay a monthly premium, a deductible, co-payments, and all of your prescription drug costs over a certain yearly amount and up to a ceiling amount, unless you qualify for a low-income subsidy.
Eligibility and Social Security Disability: You are eligible 25 months after the first month you are eligible to receive a Social Security Disability check.

Medicaid

Who is Eligible: Medicaid covers low-income and financially needy people, including those over 65 who are also on Medicare.
Who Administers the Program: Medicaid is administered by the 50 states; rules differ in each state. Medicaid information is available at your local county social services, welfare, or department of human services office.
Coverage Provided:

o Medicaid provides comprehensive inpatient and outpatient health care coverage, including many services and costs Medicare does not cover, most notably, prescription drugs, diagnostic and preventive care, and eyeglasses. The amount of coverage, however, varies from state to state. o Medicaid can pay Medicare deductibles and 20% portion of charges not paid by Medicare. Medicaid can also pay the Medicare premium.

Costs to Consumer: In some states, Medicaid charges consumers small amounts for certain services.

Social Security Disability Explained – The Sequential Evaluation Process

2020-09-29T16:48:12Z

The Social Security Administration (SSA) follows a five-step process to determine whether you are disabled for purposes of either of the two disability programs operated by SSA — SSI or Social Security disability. If it finds that you are disabled or not disabled at a step, then the determination is over and it does not go on to the next step. Those five steps are:

You are not engaging in “substantial gainful activity” (SGA); and
You have a “severe” medically determinable impairment; and
Your impairment meets or “equals” one of the impairments described in the Social Security regulations known as the “Listing of Impairments;” or
Considering your “residual functional capacity” (RFC), you are unable to do your “past relevant work” (PRW); and
You cannot make an adjustment to other work that exists in significant numbers, considering your RFC, age, education, and work experience.

Be careful about the terms identified by quotation marks and the initials that go with some of them. These terms have precise meanings in the law, and these meanings are not necessarily the meanings you would expect. In addition, to be found disabled you must meet the “duration requirement.” That is, your disability must last for 12 full months. In summary, there are two main routes to a finding of disability on an SSI or Social Security disability application:

Your impairment must meet or equal an impairment described in the Listing of Impairments — the sequential evaluation process culminates at Step 3.
You must meet all the other requirements of the sequential evaluation process culminating at step 5.

There are six ways that you may be found not disabled. That is, you are not disabled if you:

Are working at the SGA level (Step 1).
Have no medically determinable impairment (Step 2).
Have a medically determinable impairment, but it does not significantly limit your physical or mental ability to do basic work activities (Step 2).
Fail to meet the duration requirement.
Are capable of past relevant work (Step 4).
Are capable of other work (Step 5).

There are a few exceptions:

There are also “non-disability” requirements for eligibility for the Social Security disability program. That is, you must have worked and paid enough Social Security taxes to earn enough work quarters (QCs) to qualify. For the SSI program, there are income and asset requirements. Step 1: Substantial Gainful Activity To be substantial gainful activity, work must be both “substantial” and “gainful.” “Substantial work activity. . . involves doing significant physical or mental activities.” Work may not be substantial when:

You are unable “to do ordinary or simple tasks satisfactorily without more supervision or assistance than is usually given other people doing similar work.”
You are doing work “that involves minimal duties that make little or no demands” on you and that are of “little or no use” to your employer or to the operation of a self-employed business.

SSA defines gainful activity broadly: “Work activity is gainful if it is the kind of work usually done for pay or profit, whether or not a profit is realized.” Nevertheless, when you are an employee of someone else, whether work is “gainful” is usually determined by looking only at your earnings. But if you are self-employed, SSA looks carefully at your work activity and its value to the business, even if you are working at a loss (as so many unimpaired self-employed people do from time to time). SSA also does not want to let employed claimants slip past this step if they are in a position to control the timing or amount of their income (e.g., when claimants are working for relatives). Work is evaluated “without regard to legality.” Thus, illegal activity may be substantial gainful activity. Whether you are employed by someone else or self-employed, SSA allows deduction from earnings for what it calls “impairment–related work expenses,” which are usually payments you make for drugs or medical treatment for the disabling impairment but may also include payments for some transportation costs, vehicle modification, attendant care services, residential modification, etc. However, the work expense rules must be reviewed carefully before making a deduction because some expenses you wouldn’t expect are included (such as payment for treatment for the disabling impairment that you have to pay whether you work or not) and some expenses that you might expect to qualify are excluded (such as payment for health insurance). In determining if work is substantial gainful activity, SSA averages income according to rules that consider the nature of the work, the period of time worked, and whether the SGA level changed during the time the claimant worked. The SGA level, which was $300 per month during all of the 1980s and $500 per month from 1990 until July 1999, when it was raised to $700, is becoming considerably more generous than it used to be because of cost-of-living increases that have been applied beginning with the year 2001. For example, for the year 2020, average countable earnings of more than $1,260 per month show that work was substantial gainful activity. Step 2: The Severity Step At step two of the sequential evaluation process, SSA determines whether you have a “severe” impairment. This step was intended to weed out frivolous cases involving either (1) no medically determinable impairments or (2) slight medically determinable impairments that impose only minor limitations on ability to work. Virtually any reduction in residual functional capacity (what you can still do even with your impairments) satisfies the requirement that there be a severe medically determinable impairment. As such, medically determinable impairments are divided into two categories:

slight impairments that are referred to in SSA’s peculiar lingo as “nonsevere” impairments and
all other impairments that are, therefore, “severe.”

Even subjective symptoms, as long as they arise from a medically determinable impairment, must be considered in assessing whether an impairment, or group of impairments, reduces your ability to do basic work activity. If an adjudicator is “unable to determine clearly” the effect of an impairment on your ability to do basic work activities, the adjudicator is directed to proceed with the next steps of the sequential evaluation process. Thus, close cases are to be decided in favor of finding an impairment to be severe. On the other hand, “[n]o symptom or combination of symptoms can be the basis for a finding of disability, no matter how genuine the individual’s complaints may appear to be, unless there are medical signs and laboratory findings demonstrating the existence of a medically determinable physical or mental impairment.” That is, when there is no “medically determinable impairment,” you may be found not disabled at this step of the sequential evaluation process. Nevertheless, as a rule, if a doctor has enough information to make a legitimate diagnosis, you have a medically determinable impairment. When there is a controversy over which diagnosis is correct, if medical signs or laboratory findings show any abnormality, the claimant has a medically determinable impairment even if the doctors do not agree on which diagnosis is best. The Duration Requirement Unless your impairment is expected to result in death, it must have lasted or be expected to last for a continuous period of 12 months. The duration requirement is not usually a problem for impairments that wax and wane or have short periods of remission but have active periods enough to preclude engaging in substantial gainful activity on a sustained basis. However, the regulation specifically prohibits tacking together unrelated severe impairments to meet the duration requirement. Denials based on the duration requirement usually occur in those cases where, at the time of the decision, the duration requirement is not met, and the impairment is the sort that is likely to improve within 12 months. For those impairments that may or may not improve before the duration requirement is met, sometimes a state agency decision maker will delay a case just to see if you continue to be disabled. Because of the slow progress of the administrative process, the 12 months usually have passed by the time you attend a hearing, thus permitting an accurate retrospective evaluation. Once the twelve-month duration requirement is met, you may ask for a finding of a closed period of disability in the situation where your condition has improved to the degree that you are able to return to work. Step 3: Listing of Impairments In order to be found disabled at step 3 of the sequential evaluation process, your medical signs, findings, and symptoms must meet or “medically equal” one of the set of medical signs, findings and symptoms found in the Listing of Impairments. The Listing of Impairments is a set of medical criteria for disability found in the Social Security disability regulations. Even if your impairment is not in the Listing of Impairments, it is possible to argue that your impairments are medically equivalent to an impairment in the Listing. This comes up in four situations: (1) you do not have one of the essential findings stated in the Listings for your particular impairment but you have other findings; (2) you have all the essential findings but one or more of the findings is not quite severe enough and you have other findings; (3) your impairment is not described in the Listings but it may be as severe as an analogous impairment that appears in the Listings; or (4) you have a combination of impairments, none of which meet the Listings but the cumulative total of your impairments could still equal the Listings. It is possible to compare medical findings, symptoms and limitations in functioning to see if one claimant, whose impairment does not appear in the Listings, is as disabled as another claimant whose impairment meets a Listing. However, before an ALJ can find that your impairment medically equals a Listed Impairment, the decision maker must receive the opinion of a medical expert hired by SSA. Step 4: Past Relevant Work You are not disabled if you can still do your “past relevant work.” This means that you must prove that you are incapable of doing any work that you have performed in the last 15 years (or in the 15 years before your disability insured status requirement was last met, if that date is earlier), if that work was done at the “substantial gainful activity” level and lasted long enough for you to learn how to do it. Thus, you must identify your easiest job and then figure out why you cannot still do that kind of work. If you had an easy job in the past 15 years that you can still do, then you will be found not disabled unless you can put together an argument that the impairments meet or medically equal one of the impairments in the Listing of Impairments (Step 3). If you retain the capacity to do a job as it is ordinarily done, then you will be found not disabled even though your actual past job required greater exertion and you are unable to do that job. The “job as it is ordinarily done” rule will not be applied to your benefit, however. If your own past work was easier than the way the job is ordinarily done, SSA will examine the actual job requirements as you performed them in determining whether you can perform past relevant work. This rule applies even if the past job was done only part-time, if it was substantial gainful activity. Determining whether you can do past relevant work is accomplished by comparing your current residual functional capacity with the physical and mental demands of past relevant work. Step 5: Other Work Determining whether you can make an adjustment to other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy is the most complicated step in the sequential evaluation process. This step considers your remaining work capacity, age, education and work experience. SSA has provided an important tool for determining whether or not you are disabled because of medical-impairments and vocational factors: the Medical-Vocational Guidelines. The Medical-Vocational Guidelines, popularly known as the “grids,” provide that the older you are, the easier it is to be found disabled. Exceptions to the Five-Step Sequential Evaluation Three Special Profiles There are three other ways to be found disabled without completing the standard five-step sequential evaluation process. If you fit one of three special medical-vocational profiles, you are found disabled without proceeding to step five and without consulting the Medical-Vocational Guidelines. Profile #1: A claimant is disabled who:

Has a severe, medically determinable impairment;
Is age 55 or older;
Has an 11th grade education or less; and
Has no past relevant work experience.

Profile #2 (the “worn-out worker”): A claimant is disabled who:

Has no more than a sixth-grade education;
Worked 35 years at arduous unskilled labor; and
Is unable to do the arduous unskilled labor done in the past.

Profile #3: A claimant is disabled who:

Is not working at SGA level.
Has a lifetime commitment (30 years or more) to a field of work that is unskilled or is skilled or semi-skilled but with no transferable skills.
Can no longer perform this past work because of a severe impairment.
Is closely approaching retirement age (age 60 or older).
Has no more than a limited education.

Disabled But Not Eligible There are two ways to be found not disabled even though the sequential disability evaluation process has been completed and SSA has concluded that you are, in fact, disabled. You will not be found disabled if:

Without good reason, you do not follow prescribed treatment. A determination finding a claimant not disabled on this basis is made only after SSA finds that you are otherwise disabled. The treatment must be prescribed by your own physician and this treatment must be “clearly expected to restore” your ability to work.

Drug addiction or alcoholism is “a contributing factor material to the determination of disability.” This issue is addressed only after it is determined that you are disabled when considering all impairments, including any impairments involving drug addiction or alcoholism. Then SSA looks at your impairments again to consider whether you would still be disabled if you stopped using drugs or alcohol.

An Overview of Fourth Amendment Search and Seizure

2026-04-14T07:11:29Z

In many criminal prosecutions, the government gathers its strongest (and sometimes only) evidence through a search of the defendant or of the defendant’s property. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects American citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures. Specifically, the Fourth Amendment provides: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” This post will provide an overview of the Fourth Amendment, how it applies, and some common exceptions to requirement that police obtain a valid warrant based upon probable cause. The first real inquiry one should make when challenging the validity of a government search is whether a reasonable expectation of privacy exists. This is critical, because if the person challenging the search does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the property searched or seized, then that person lacks legal standing to challenge the search. The reasonable expectation of privacy analysis is incredibly fact-sensitive, and should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. However, there are certain scenarios where a reasonable expectation of privacy almost always exists. For example, if you own, live on, or are an overnight guest at the premises searched, you have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that premises, and would have standing to challenge the search. On the other hand, there are also scenarios where courts are not going to find a reasonable expectation of privacy. These “no standing” categories generally deal with things that you hold out to the public, such as the sound of your voice, the paint on your car, the location of your car on a public road, the style of your handwriting, or anything that can be seen across open fields. If you have a reasonable expectation of privacy, the next question we need to answer for Fourth Amendment purposes is whether the police have a valid search warrant. For a search warrant to be valid, it must (1) be based on probable cause and (2) state with particularity the place to be searched and the things to be seized. Probable cause exists if there is a fair probability that evidence of a crime will be found in the area searched. If police have a valid warrant, they are allowed to search the area(s) listed in the warrant and seize the items listed in the warrant, if found during the search. While police are generally required to get a warrant before executing a search or seizure, courts have developed quite a few exceptions to that general rule over time. In these certain scenarios, police are not required to get a warrant at all. Some of the more common exceptions to the warrant requirement include: 1. Search Incident to Arrest. Police are permitted to search you following a lawful arrest, with some limitations. First, the arrest must be legal. If the arrest is illegal, the search incident to that arrest is also illegal. Next, the arrest and search must take place at the same time and place. For example, police cannot arrest someone in Indianapolis, transport that person to Cincinnati, and then search the person incident to arrest once they get to Cincinnati. Police are also generally limited to searching the person and the area within the person’s wingspan when searching incident to arrest. 2. Vehicle Search Incident to Arrest. There are also circumstances that allow police to search a vehicle incident to arrest. Police may search the interior of a vehicle incident to arrest only if (1) the arrestee is unsecured and can still access the vehicle, or (2) the police reasonably believe that evidence of the offense that the person was arrested for may be found in the vehicle. It is important to note here that it does not matter what evidence police ultimately find during a vehicle search incident to arrest, so long as the search itself was valid. 3. Automobile Exception. Police must have probable cause before searching anything or anyone within the purview of the automobile exception. The probable cause justifying a warrantless vehicle search under this exception can arise after a traffic stop, but must arise before any search. If, and only if, police have probable cause before searching anything or anyone, then they can search the entire car. That means they can search the entire interior, including the trunk, and any luggage or containers inside the car—so long as the luggage or containers may reasonably contain the item that they have probable cause to be searching for. 4. Plain View Exception. The plain view exception permits police to seize evidence of crimes that, not surprisingly, are in the plain view of the police. The two key factors in determining the validity of a plain view seizure are (1) whether the police are legitimately present at the location where the item is seized and (2) whether it is immediately apparent that the item is contraband. For example, if a police officer bursts into your home for no apparent reason and finds marijuana on your table, the officer is not likely “legitimately present,” and the evidence should be suppressed. However, if a police officer makes a valid traffic stop and sees marijuana on your passenger seat, he may properly seize it under the plain view exception. 5. Consent. Police may search a person or property if given consent. For consent to be valid, it must be voluntary. Additionally, if two or more people have authority to consent to a search of certain property, any one of those people can consent to a warrantless search. However, if all people with authority are present, and even one person does not consent to a warrantless search, then that person’s refusal overrides the others’ consent. Fourth Amendment search and seizure is tremendously nuanced, but is one of the most important areas of the law for a criminal defense attorney to know and understand. If the government violates the Fourth Amendment, evidence derived from its violation may be suppressed—meaning it can’t be used at trial. If the government cannot use evidence at trial, it may have no choice but to dismiss charges. If you or a loved one are the subject of an investigation, or have been charged with a crime, contact us at any time via email at legal@pillarlgp.com or by phone at [nap_phone id="LOCAL-CT-NUMBER-1"]. We will help you. Disclaimer: this post is made for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice. Please consult an attorney with questions regarding a specific case.

What Happens If I Get Pulled Over and Refuse a Chemical Test in Indiana?

2026-04-14T07:07:29Z

In Indiana, there are a wide range of consequences for operating a vehicle while intoxicated. Most Hoosiers are well aware that there are substantial risks associated with OWI, including criminal convictions and jail time. However, many are not aware of Indiana’s Implied Consent Law and the impact it may have on an OWI case and a defendant’s foreseeable future. This post will review the Implied Consent Law and how it applies to each and every one of us who drive in Indiana. The Implied Consent Law generally states that a person who operates a vehicle impliedly consents to a chemical test as a condition of operating a vehicle in Indiana. In other words, you really have no choice but to submit to a chemical test properly offered to you by a police officer. There are harsh penalties for refusing such a chemical test. First, it is important to distinguish between a chemical test and the other types of tests that may be offered during the course of a traffic stop or OWI investigation. A preliminary breath test or “PBT” (the handheld breathalyzer device that officers carry with them while on patrol) is not a chemical test as contemplated by Indiana’s Implied Consent Law. The standardized field sobriety tests typically offered roadside are not chemical tests either. “Chemical test” under the Implied Consent law means either (1) a blood test or (2) a breath test conducted by a certified operator using a certified instrument/machine (typically handled at a police station on an “EC/IR II” breathalyzer). The State of Indiana regularly inspects each police department’s EC/IR II, and maintains certifications for each instrument and each certified operator. So, when can a police officer offer a driver a chemical test? Indiana code requires an officer to offer a chemical test to a driver within three hours of operation when the officer has probable cause to believe that the driver operated while intoxicated. Police officers use a combination of the circumstances of the stop, initial contact and observations of the driver, and the results of any standardized field sobriety tests in order to determine whether they have probable cause to offer the chemical test. If the officer believes probable cause exists, the officer will then inform the driver of the Implied Consent Law and the possible consequences of refusing the chemical test. The officer will typically read the advisement from an implied consent card that officers carry, which states as follows: “I am a police officer; I have probable cause to believe that you have operated a vehicle while intoxicated. I must now offer you the opportunity to submit to a chemical test, and inform you that your refusal to submit to a chemical test will result in the suspension of your diving privileges for one year. If you have at least one previous conviction for operating while intoxicated, your refusal to submit to a chemical test will result in the suspension of your driving privileges for two years. Will you now take a chemical test?” As you can see, the Implied Consent Law requires the BMV to suspend a driver’s driving privileges for one to two years for refusing a chemical test, depending on the driver’s history of OWI. That refusal suspension is further required to run first, and in addition to, any other suspension resulting from an OWI conviction. A refusal suspension also renders the driver statutorily ineligible for specialized driving privileges, meaning that there is no possibility of having driving privileges restored during the term of the refusal suspension. Clearly, a driver’s decision to submit to or refuse a chemical test is an important one with potentially devastating consequences. An experienced OWI attorney can help navigate the nuances associated with OWI investigations and charges, and will be able to help mitigate any resulting penalties. If you or a loved one have been charged with OWI, contact us at any time via email at legal@pillarlgp.com or by phone at [nap_phone id="LOCAL-CT-NUMBER-1"] We will fight for you. Disclaimer: this post is made for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice. Please consult an attorney with questions regarding a specific case.

Miranda, Pirtle, and How They May Impact a Criminal Case

2026-04-14T07:11:05Z

As defense lawyers, we often receive questions about whether or when a criminal defendant should have been read his or her rights. More often than not, those questions are referring to Miranda rights: “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you.” However, in Indiana, Pirtle rights also exist. This blog will provide an overview of these rights, when they apply, and how they may impact the outcome of a criminal case. Most people are familiar with Miranda rights, at least to some extent. Generally, police must read Miranda warnings to an individual once that individual is (1) in custody and (2) subject to interrogation. That means that police only have to “Mirandize” a suspect if the suspect is in custody and the police want to question the suspect. “Custody” for purposes of this inquiry is determined by a “reasonable person” standard—if a “reasonable person” in the suspect’s position would not feel free to leave, then the law says that the suspect is/was in custody. The custody analysis is incredibly fact-sensitive and should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Most often, Miranda issues that arise in a criminal case relate to statements or confessions that a criminal defendant is alleged to have made during the course of an investigation. Importantly, suspects and criminal defendants in Indiana are also protected by a set of rights called Pirtle rights. Pirtle rights typically apply in situations where police want to search a suspect’s vehicle or home. Like Miranda rights, Pirtle rights attach or apply to persons in custody. However, Pirtle further entitles Hoosiers to the presence and advice of counsel prior to consenting to a search. That means that, in addition to reading Miranda rights to suspects in custody prior to interrogation, police also have to read Pirtle warnings to suspects in custody if they are seeking consent to a search of the suspect’s property. The Pirtle warnings must inform the person in custody as follows: “You have the right to require that a search warrant be obtained before any search of your residence, vehicle or other premises. You have the right to refuse to consent to any such search. You have the right to consult with an attorney prior to giving consent to any such search. If you cannot afford an attorney, you have the right to have an attorney provided to you at no cost.” There are, of course, exceptions to these general rules. For example, even if a suspect chooses to invoke his or her Miranda rights, he or she may still be required to answer questions seeking basic identifying information (i.e. name, date of birth, address). Suspects may also be patted down (i.e. searched) for weapons in the interest of officer safety. Both sets of rights may also be waived by suspects or defendants. Finally, if a Court determines that the State obtained or derived certain evidence from a violation of either Miranda or Pirtle, the Court may suppress that evidence. If the Court suppresses evidence, the State cannot use that evidence at trial. And, if the State cannot use certain evidence at trial, the State may be left with no choice but to dismiss the criminal charges that it filed against a defendant. The rights of the accused should be at the forefront of, and of the utmost importance to, any criminal justice proceeding. An experienced and dedicated defense attorney can help protect those rights. If you or a loved one are the subject of a criminal investigation or have been charged with a crime, contact us at any time via email at legal@pillarlgp.com or by phone at [nap_phone id="LOCAL-CT-NUMBER-1"]. Thank you. Disclaimer: this post is made for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice. Please consult an attorney with questions regarding a specific case.

Updates to Specialized Driving Privileges in Indiana

2026-04-14T07:07:51Z

Last year, Indiana legislators amended the law to the benefit of those recently charged with Operating a Vehicle While Intoxicated (“OWI”). Under the new law, Hoosiers have the ability to avoid an immediate license suspension. This post will lay out the general procedure for staying that initial suspension and obtaining Specialized Driving Privileges (“SDP”) when charged with OWI. First, one must be eligible for SDP. You are ineligible for SDP in Indiana if (1) you have never been an Indiana resident, (2) you refused a certified chemical test offered to you by a police officer, or (3) the BMV determined that you are incompetent or unfit to operate a vehicle. Generally, if, at an initial hearing, a Judge finds probable cause that a defendant operated a vehicle while intoxicated, the Judge is required to suspend your driving privileges and notify the BMV of that suspension. This is commonly referred to as a “probable cause suspension.” Prior to the recent amendment to the SDP law and procedure, an OWI defendant would be stuck with the probable cause suspension unless and until the defendant was awarded SDP. Previously, that meant that defendants could not drive until (1) they obtained the required SR-22/insurance coverage, (2) they drafted and filed their Petition for SDP, and (3) they attended a subsequent hearing at which the Judge would hopefully grant SDP. Indiana Code 9-30-16-1(g) now changes that procedure and offers an avenue to stay the probable cause suspension. More specifically, if a defendant indicates to the Court at an initial hearing that (1) the defendant is eligible for SDP and (2) the Defendant intends to file a Petition for SDP, the Court must stay the probable cause suspension for a period of 30 days. From there, time is of the essence, as the defendant has only 10 days from the date of the initial hearing to obtain the required SR-22 coverage and file the Petition for SDP. The suspension will go into effect if the defendant does not properly file for SDP within that 10-day window. However, so long as a defendant properly files for SDP within 10 days, the suspension will remain stayed until the Court holds a subsequent hearing and either grants (and thus continues) the SDP or denies the SDP. While the possibility of staying a suspension of driving privileges is a positive for Hoosiers charged with OWI, it must be noted that Courts can, and frequently do, impose certain conditions or limitations on the privileges they grant. For example, Courts can limit your driving privileges to certain days of the week, certain hours of the day, or even limit where you are allowed to drive to and from. Courts may also require that the defendant only operate a vehicle with an ignition interlock device installed. Choosing an attorney with knowledge and experience in OWI and SDP laws can make a drastic impact in your case, which can in turn make a drastic impact on your future. If you or a loved one have been charged with OWI, or need help applying for specialized driving privileges, please contact us at any time via email at legal@pillarlgp.com or by phone at [nap_phone id="LOCAL-CT-NUMBER-1"]. Thank you. Disclaimer: this post is made for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice. Please consult an attorney with questions regarding a specific case.