IN Con.

Law
Tips & Topics

Overview

The structure of INs Government (Art. III-VII)

Focusing on Legislative and Judicial Branch

The Bill of Rights (Art. I) and State Institutions (Art. IX)

Education (Art. VIII)

Finance, Corporations, and Indebtedness (Art. X, XI, and XIII)

IN Con. Law
Introduction

IN Constitutional Standard of Review: 4 Step Analysis

When an IN State Const. Claim is raised, the IN SC prescribes a four step analysis
that considers:

Text of the provision

History of the provision

General purpose and structure of the constitution; and

Case precedent.

Distinctions from Fed. Const. Review

No federal Corollary. The constitutional issue is unique to INs Constitution.

Federal Corollary and Federal Analysis. Has federal corollary and incorporates
fed. analysis.

Federal Corollary but NO Federal Analysis. Has federal corollary BUT follows
different analysis.

Lesson Learned: Consider both. Some issues fed. const. provides greater protection,
others IN const.

IN Con. Law
Structure of INs Government

The Legislative Branch

Special Laws Prohibited (7/24)

General Rule. Legislature is prohibited from passing special law (that is, a law that
applies only to particular persons or particular locations) when it can enact general
law.

Standard of review is extreme leg. deference; few special laws struck down
unconst.

Federal Comparison. No fed. const. corollary.

Two-step Special Law Test.

Form (Subject Matter). Court first asks, is the subject matter amendable to general
law of uniform application? (Will a general law work?).

If no, law is constitutional unless expressly prohibited by constitutional list of 16

subjects (Art. IV, 22) (ex. include prohibitions against the granting of individual
divorces, to designating punishments for particular individuals).

Function (Application). If yes, is the law special in application? If Yes,

unconstitutional.

Population Classification: Legislature may attempt to avoid the special law

prohibition by reference to population size rather than specific location.

2-Part Test. Population classification statutes only valid if they provide:

Rational basis (using population is rational) and

Eventual qualification (population categories are open so that other localities can
eventually qualify).

Germaneness (5/24)

General rule. Laws must be confined to a single subject.

Standard of review is extreme legislative deference. See Dague (Ind. 1981)

(holding not unreasonable for 27 of the 28 sections of an Act concern court
procedures, while last section revises IN product liability legislation).
Federal Comparison. No fed. const. corollary.

Test. Geremanness is subject to a test of reasonableness; Ask whether there is

rational unity b/t the matters in the act such that they fall under one subject.

Judicial Branch (Article VII)

Advisory Opinions. IN SC has tacit const. authority to issue advisory opinions.

Federal Comparison. No fed. const. corollary.

Example. Fed. court certifies question to IN SC RE IN act. IN SC may issue advisory

opinion to provide statutory interpretation.

2 Caveats on Advisory Opinion:

Jurisdictional requirements of standing, ripeness, and mootness DO NOT prevent

the Court from issuing advisory opinions (flexible approach).

Example. Existence of Dispute is sufficient; even when not ripe.

All judicial authority, including authority to issue advisory opinions IS constrained

by INs constitutional recognition of Separation of Powers.

IN Const. explicitly mandates the SOP and separation of functions (Art. III).

Federal comparison. SOP is implied.

Jurisdiction of the SC: Review of Sentences

General Authority. IN SC explicitly const. authorized to review and revise all

criminal sentences in order to prevent manifest injustice. (Presumption of
reasonableness).

Death Sentences: De Novo, Nonwaivable Review. IN SC review of the death

sentence is independent and automatic of the trial court. There is NO presumption
that trial court sentence is appropriate.

Example. Review of death sentences is de novo. See Roper (holding unique and
disproportionate to give death sentence only to one child under 16 in state history).

Example2. Term of Year Cases: Presumption of Reasonableness.

Note: life sentence for juvenile without chance of parole now federally unconst.
IN Con. Law The Bill of RightsArticle I (Looking at
individual protections now)

Freedom of Expression

Indiana Test: Price v. State. State cannot impose a material burden on a core
constitutional value.

Core constitutional value

Includes Speech when it is political.

Political speech is

(i) A popular comment on public concern and

(ii) directed toward a political actor.

Materially burdened

Political speech is materially burdened unless it causes a private nuisance.

Ex. IF political speech, constitutional right to speak is violated unless deemed a

private nuisance

Ex2. Yelling at cop who is arresting brother outside strip club. Deemed was political
and no private nuisance so constitutional right violated.

Federal Comparison. Follows difference analysis. (S.O.C. P.P.)

State interests in the material burden inquiry irrelevant in IN test, unlike federal
test.

Overbreadth doctrine is not recognized in IN test, unlike federal test.

Content-neutral time, place and manner restrictions irrelevant in the IN test, unlike
Fed

Political/Nonpolitical Inquiry important in IN test, as it makes distinction b/t the two

and more broadly protects political speech, unlike the Fed. test.

Private/Public nuissance distinction is made in IN test, unlike the Fed. test.

Freedom of Religion
Indiana Constitution has seven religious freedom clauses.

Natural Right to Worship According to Dictates of Conscience

Freedom of Religious Opinions and Rights of Conscience

Freedom of Religion

No Religious Test of Office for Trust or Profit

No Public Money for Benefit of Religious or Theological Institutions

Witness Competent Regardless of Religious Opinions

Administration of Oath or Affirmation Consistent with Ones Conscience

Federal Comparison. Federal corollary provides less protection.

Ex. Law requiring every license have photograph unconstitutional, violating natural
right to worship.

States interest in photo is outweighed by Ps religious beliefs against personal photos.

Ex2. CAN ask voir dire question RE religions; does not hold public office for trust or
profit.

Other examples

Zoning ordinances cannot exclude churches in residential areaRight to worship.

Bible reading by college professor prohibitedviolating IN Const. principle of rel.

neutrality.

Cannot contribute money to homeless shelter that requires church attendanceNo

pub. $

Cannot exercise eminent domain if materially burdens religious rights .

Equal Privileges and Immunities

General Rule. IN Constitution guarantees the Legislature shall provide all citizens
equal privileges and immunities.

Indiana Two-Part Test. (Offers legislature significant deference). REQUIRES:

Different treatment of all classes be subject only to rational basis AND

Similarly situated people within a class be equally treated.

Federal Comparison. Fed. corollary of equal protection provides greater individual

protection.

Under Fed. law, suspect classes receive higher standards of review.

Due Course of Law

General Rule. IN explicitly guarantees for injury to person, property, or reputation

[every person] shall have remedy by due course of law

Federal Comparison. Fed. due process of law provides a consistent analysis.

Rights of Criminal Defendants (Some Criminal Constitutional Protections).

Unreasonable Search and Seizure (1/24)

Indiana Reasonableness Test. IN asks whether the search and seizure was
reasonable.

Federal Comparison. Fed. corollary of the 4th Amend. uses a different analysis but
same result.

Fed. test considers: (i) actual expectation of privacy and (ii) whether such
expectation was reasonable.

Right to Confrontation.

General rule. IN Const. explicitly guarantees the right to meet witnesses face to
face.

Federal Comparison. Provides less protection.

Example. Significance of our specific text requirement of meet witnesses face to

face. Child videotaping statute found to violate INs right to meet witnesses face to
face. NO federal violation as child is fully cross-examined.

Prohibition against Arrest or Confinement with Unnecessary Rigor.

The IN Const. prohibition against unnecessary rigor is usually confined to cases of

extreme physical force by state officials. (think coerced confessions).
Federal comparison. There is no fed. const. corollary.

Cruel or Unusual Punishment. (1/24)

Indiana Two Requirements:

Proportionality. All criminal sentences must be proportional to the crime.

Imposition. No cruel and unusual punishment may be used.

Proportionality Two-part test considers: (1/24)

Nature and gravity of current offenses and

Nature and gravity of prior offenses (if any; habitual offender cases)

Appellate court has the power to set new sentence where determines trial sentence
unconst.

Federal Comparison. Fed. corollary of the 8th Amend. (co-extensive) only applies
to life senetece w/out parole and death sentences.

Penal Coded Founded on Reformation.

General rule. IN constitution explicitly mandates The penal code shall be founded
on principles of reformation and not of vindictive justice.

Limited application. Provision applies to the penal system as a whole, not to

individual treatment.

Federal comparison. NO fed. const. corollary.

Institutions for Juvenile Offenders.

General rule. The IN Const. explicitly mandates separate juvenile facilities.

HOWEVER, such protection does not guarantee juvenile detention for all juvenile
offenders.

Federal comparison. Federal Comparison.

Hypo. 16 yr old girl placed in special needs area of adult prison. Treatment with sex-
abuses; ostracized b/c of age.

IN protection against confinement with unnecessary rigor? Not violated; inadequacy

of her rehabilitation treatment insignificant.

IN and Fed. prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment?

Proportionality standards? Both inapplicable; sentence is not being challenged.

Imposition standards? Applicable and violated IF deliberate indifference to the

girls physical and emotional needs.

IN guarantee of punishment founded on reformation not vindictive justice? N/A, this

is a case of an individual prisone, not case against whole system.

IN guarantee of institution for juvenile offensers? Not violated.

DP protection of liberty? May be violated, IF can show liberty interests of adult girl
threated by inmates sexual advances.

Right to Compensation for Property and Services

Taking of Property

General Rule. Taking of property requires just compensation.

IN Manner and Method of Compensation requires:

Payment before the taking AND extrinsic benefits be paid.

The extrinsic benefit rule is method of using benefits to offset damage from the
taking.

The assessment equals:

Assessed value of the property

PLUS Damage done to remaining property b/c of taking,

MINUS Benefits accrued to remaining property because of the taking.

Federal Comparison. 5 th Amend. fed. corollary on takings, but Different

compensation analysis.

Demand of Particular Services

General Rule. INs demand of a particular services requires just compensation.

Two-Part Takings Analysis.

Particular Service. Turns on (i) history and (ii) the reasonableness of the
service as an exchange for the benefits the state bestows on its citizens. And

Ex. patients in state institution required to work in kitchen and garden upheld.

Demanded Service. Services are demanded by the state when request is backed up
with use or threated use of physical force or legal process that creates reasonable
belief that not free to refuse the request.

Ex. of particular services demanded by state which require compensation are

jury duty and military service.

Compensation is calculated based upon extrinsic benefits analysis. (see above).

Privilege of the Debtor; No Debtors Prison

General Rule. To protect debtors and creditors:

A reasonable amount of property is exempt from seizure or sale AND

Except in the case of fraud, debtors cannot be imprisoned for debt.

Fed. comparison. Fed. Const. provides no similar provision.

Two Caveats.

Distinction b/t Obligations(NOT constitutionally protected) and Debts.

Obligation is found in nature, not contract.

Ex. Divorced mother may be imprisoned for failure to pay child support obligation
but may not be for failure to pay debt of alimony.

General Exemption Suspect. A property exemption without a specific cap is

constitutionally suspect.

Example. Legislation passes allowing life insurance policies to be exempt from

bankruptcy proceedings. An individual puts 100K into policy in one-time payment.
Exempt during bankruptcy proceedings?

It depends; without a cap, 100K is suspect so must be proven to be reasonably

necessary in order to be exempt from creditors.
IN Con. Law
Education

General Rule. The General Assembly must provide a public school system which
demonstrates:

A general and uniform system.

The schools state funding must preserve equity in per student spending;

Tuition without chard

Key question: what is tuition?

Tuition does not include rental fee for textbooks.

But student services fee to offset costs of nurses, media, counselors, drama cannot
be charged. (Stating tuition may be more than instruction).

Difference? Rental fees have been historically been charged, while student serves
have been free. REMEMBER: History is a key component in IN const. interpretation.

AND System equally open to all.

IN Con. Law Finance,

Corporations and Indebtedness

General Rule. IN cannot go into debt.

To prevent state indebtedness:

Article X,Finance (4/24) prescribes state financing measures, including means of

taxation and prohibitions on private stock holding.

Property tax system should be based on property wealth. Uniform and equal
taxation need NOT be based on fair market value. Instead IN SC requris:

Uniform assessment,

Uniform rates, and

Equal evaluation.
Article XI, Corporations governs banking and government investment. .

Article XIII, Indebtedness limits the debt incurred by political subdivisions.