Does Oath Make A Difference?

Filed Under Indiana Supreme Court, law, law enforcement

Does an oath make a difference if it had been already given by previous police departments subsequently merged into a new department?

It shouldn’t matter because it would seem that the original oath would survive the merger of the two police forces, but it remains to be seen what will happen in Indianapolis until a decision is issued in a recent Indiana Supreme Court case.

The oath-taking issue is before the Indiana Supreme Court in the case of State v. Cheryl Oddi-Smith, 49A05-0708-CR-445.

Marion County and Indianapolis police officers had been sworn into their respective departments before the consolidation of the city and county forces into one unit: The Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department. Some police officers weren’t re-sworn when the new entity was created.

Cheryl Oddi-Smith was arrested by officers of the new police force, but her case was tossed by a Marion County Superior Court judge because of the oath-taking issue.

An appeal went directly to the Indiana Supreme Court because the trial court decision created an emergency in the legal system and involved in issue of great public importance. Would every arrest in Indianapolis since the creation of the new police force be invalid?

Writes the Indiana Lawyer Daily’s Michael Hoskins about recent oral arguments in the Oddi-Smith case:

Justice Frank Sullivan picked up on the term “consolidated” and compared the law enforcement consolidation to a corporate merger, where the new entity is beholden to all the previous liability and obligations the former two agencies had.

He pondered what would happen to lawsuits or actions filed to a previous agency if that liability went away with a consolidation, and his colleagues picked up on that thought. Justice Ted Boehm noted that it could create an opportunity for municipalities to create a shell game to avoid liability, washing their hands clean of any potential trouble by forming a new entity.

“If an oath doesn’t carry over, what else doesn’t carry over,” Justice Sullivan asked. “What implications does that have, and how can that make sense?”

Share and Enjoy: