If you are in need of an experienced Indiana forfeiture attorney, call me at 317-695-7700 for a free consultation or email me at jeffcardella@cardellalawoffice.com. I was lead counsel in the federal class action lawsuit of Washington v. Marion County Prosecutor, in which Indiana’s vehicle forfeiture statute was held unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. I also co-authored the amicus brief in the United States Supreme Court forfeiture case of Timbs v. Indiana, in which the Supreme Court held that the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment applies to the States. These cases fundamentally changed forfeiture law in Indiana and remain among the most important constitutional forfeiture decisions in the country.
I have spent my entire legal career handling criminal defense and constitutional litigation in Indiana. I taught criminal law at the Indiana University School of Law and have served as a Judge pro tem in Indiana. I have litigated complex constitutional challenges under 42 USC 1983, filed successful lawsuits against the Indiana Department of Corrections challenging solitary confinement procedures under the Due Process Clause, and filed successful lawsuits against the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department involving unconstitutional arrests and violations of the First Amendment. I have represented a fellow criminal defense attorney, a Metro Police Officer, and former Sheriff’s deputies after they themselves were accused of criminal activity. These individuals were familiar with many criminal lawyers throughout Indiana and trusted me to represent them during some of the most difficult moments of their lives.
I have handled thousands of criminal and forfeiture matters throughout Indiana and served as lead counsel in hundreds of trials. My experience includes jury trials, bench trials, suppression litigation, appellate law, post-conviction litigation, civil rights lawsuits, constitutional challenges, expungements, federal litigation, forfeiture proceedings, and complex criminal defense matters in both State and Federal Court. Because forfeiture law frequently intersects with constitutional litigation, suppression issues, and parallel criminal proceedings, these cases require a lawyer who fully understands both criminal defense strategy and advanced constitutional law.
Civil forfeiture cases are among the most misunderstood and abusive areas of modern law enforcement. In many forfeiture cases, the government attempts to permanently seize cash, vehicles, homes, firearms, jewelry, bank accounts, or business property even though the owner has never been convicted of a crime. In some cases, the owner is never criminally charged at all. These cases often involve aggressive law enforcement tactics, confusing procedural rules, parallel criminal investigations, and significant constitutional concerns. As an Indiana forfeiture attorney, I aggressively challenge unlawful seizures and work to recover property taken by the government.
Jeff Cardella: Indiana Forfeiture Attorney and Constitutional Litigator
Civil forfeiture is a legal fiction allowing the government to proceed directly against property itself rather than against a person. That is why forfeiture cases frequently have captions such as “State of Indiana v. $24,500 in U.S. Currency” or “United States v. One 2019 Chevrolet Silverado.” The theory is that the property itself was somehow involved in criminal activity. In practice, however, modern forfeiture law often allows the government to impose devastating financial punishment upon individuals who have never been convicted of anything.
Civil forfeiture is a legal fiction that allows the government to take action against inanimate objects regardless of whether the owner is charged with a crime. Forfeiture traces its roots to Roman and medieval English law, but originated in Biblical and pre-Judeo-Christian practices. At common law, an object that caused the death of a King’s subject, even if accidentally, was forfeited to the Crown as a deodand. The value of the object was then used for charitable purposes or to pay for masses for the dead man’s soul. Over time, Prosecutors began using forfeiture to obtain jurisdiction over property when violators of maritime law were overseas and could not be prosecuted. Today, all States allow for forfeiture and there are over four hundred federal forfeiture statutes.
Justice Clarence Thomas of the United States Supreme Court has openly criticized modern forfeiture systems, explaining that they have “led to egregious and well-chronicled abuses.” Former Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Randall Shepard similarly observed that forfeiture statutes often permit property owners to permanently lose homes, vehicles, and cash without ever being convicted of a crime. In a case I recently handled, Judge Manion, a Federal Judge on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals wrote: “in 2015, law enforcement took more property from Americans than criminals did . . . vehicle forfeitures are economically painful. Many Americans depend on cars for food, school, work, medical treatment, church, relationships, arts, sports, recreation, and anything farther away than the ends of their driveways. Cars extend us. Cars manifest liberty. A person released on bond, retaining a presumption of innocence, might suffer virtual imprisonment if he cannot regain his vehicle in time to drive to work.” These constitutional concerns are not theoretical. I have personally litigated many of them in both State and Federal Court.
One of the most disturbing aspects of modern forfeiture systems is the financial incentive structure involved. Law enforcement agencies often directly benefit from forfeiture proceeds. In many jurisdictions, forfeiture revenue funds vehicles, equipment, overtime, investigations, and departmental budgets. This creates obvious incentives for aggressive seizure practices. In some cases, law enforcement agencies effectively seize first and investigate later.
Washington v. Marion County Prosecutor and Vehicle Forfeiture Litigation
I served as lead counsel in the federal class action lawsuit of Washington v. Marion County Prosecutor. The case challenged Indiana’s vehicle forfeiture procedures under the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. Marion County had developed a system in which vehicles were routinely seized during criminal investigations while owners were denied meaningful opportunities to promptly challenge the seizure.
Many people rely upon vehicles for employment, childcare, medical appointments, grocery shopping, education, and basic life necessities. Losing a vehicle can function as a devastating punishment long before any criminal conviction occurs. In the Washington litigation, the federal court ultimately ruled that Indiana’s procedures violated constitutional due process protections and issued an injunction preventing continuation of unconstitutional forfeiture practices.
During related Seventh Circuit litigation, Judge Manion wrote that in 2015 law enforcement agencies took more property from Americans through forfeiture than criminals stole through burglary and theft. He further explained that vehicle forfeitures can create “virtual imprisonment” because modern Americans depend heavily upon transportation for work, family, healthcare, and ordinary life activities.
Vehicle forfeitures remain one of the most common forms of forfeiture litigation in Indiana. Vehicles are frequently seized in alleged narcotics investigations, OWI cases, dealing investigations, fleeing cases, and habitual offender investigations. In many situations, innocent family members suffer enormous consequences despite having little or no involvement in the alleged offense.
Timbs v. Indiana and the Excessive Fines Clause
I also co-authored the amicus brief in the landmark United States Supreme Court case of Timbs v. Indiana. The case involved the attempted forfeiture of a $42,000 Land Rover following a relatively low-level drug offense. The Supreme Court unanimously held that the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment applies to the States and limits excessive forfeitures imposed by state governments.
The Timbs decision was extraordinarily important because it reaffirmed that forfeiture actions are subject to constitutional proportionality limitations. Governments cannot simply seize valuable property whenever they allege some connection to criminal activity. Courts must evaluate whether the forfeiture is constitutionally excessive under the circumstances.
Today, constitutional forfeiture litigation frequently involves issues concerning excessive fines, procedural due process, unlawful searches and seizures, standing, proportionality, innocent-owner protections, and delays in obtaining hearings. Because of my direct involvement in landmark constitutional forfeiture litigation, many clients throughout Indiana specifically contact my office regarding complex forfeiture matters.
FedEx Cash Seizures and Package Interdiction Cases in Indianapolis
One area where I have particularly extensive experience involves FedEx cash seizures and package interdiction investigations. Many people are shocked to learn that law enforcement agencies actively monitor package distribution facilities in Indianapolis. Indiana State Police, IMPD, Homeland Security Investigations, DEA task force officers, Customs and Border Protection, and other interdiction officers routinely inspect suspicious packages moving through shipping facilities.
It is generally not illegal to send cash, even in large quantities, by mail or FedEx. However, cash often contains trace amounts of drug residue. If you go to the bank and request enough cash, some of the bills will inevitably have trace amounts of drug residue (most often cocaine). If you send this cash by FedEx, it is likely to eventually make its way to the FedEx sorting center in Marion County, Indianapolis, Indiana. The Indiana State Police and Indianapolis Police Department have police officers (often Thorla, Wix, and Etter) as well as drug dogs specifically assigned to the Indianapolis FedEx sorting center (and they make a great deal of profit from the cash that comes through). If there is a FedEx package with a large quantity of cash in it, a drug dog will likely hit on the package. A drug dog hitting on a package is generally adequate to establish probable cause for a search and seizure of the currency.
The Indiana State Police or Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department will then generally submit an AFFIDAVIT FOR PROBABLE CAUSE to a Judge in Marion County, Indiana, which states something similar to the following: I do swear and affirm that the following information is true to the best of my knowledge: I am a police officer with the Indiana State Police Department or the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department. Because of the breadth of this investigation, this affidavit is being submitted to the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office for the purpose of establishing probable cause. It does not contain all of the information gathered during this investigation, list all witnesses to this incident, and is not a complete account of all events during this incident. This investigation is ongoing and will be supplemented by other officers as necessary. I am currently assigned as a Detective to the Criminal Interdiction Unit of the Indiana State Police Drug Enforcement Section. In connection with my official duties, I am involved in investigations relating to violations of the Indiana controlled substances laws. I have received training relating to enforcement of the Indiana controlled substances laws, including the following: 1. I participated in training at the Indiana Law Enforcement Academy. I have satisfied the minimum basic training requirements established by the rules adopted by the law enforcement training board under I.C. 5-2-1-9 and described in I.C. 35-37-4-5. 2. I have participated in criminal interdiction training courses, which included specific training in detecting shipments containing controlled substances; 3. Yearly in-service training. 4. I have been assigned to the Homeland Security Investigations Parcel / Bulk Cash Smuggling Interdiction Task Force, comprised of the Indiana State Police, Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and U.S. Homeland Security Investigations since operations started at local shipping companies in 2012 and have been involved in over 1100 parcel investigations and seizures.
While working parcel interdiction at a local shipping company with the Homeland Security Investigations Parcel / Bulk Cash Smuggling Interdiction Task Force, comprised of the Indiana State Police, Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and U.S. Homeland Security Investigations, a parcel was intercepted that appeared inconsistent with other parcels. The parcel was sent from: (name). The parcel was sent to: (name). The tracking number was (tracking number). The parcel was deemed suspicious because of the new bought box which had extra external tape and a printed label that showed priority overnight delivery and was paid with credit card or cash. The parcel was from an individual to an individual. The parcel was from residence to a residence. There was not a telephone number listed for the receiver. After the parcel was intercepted, TFO officers took the parcel at the local shipping company and moved it to an on-site location in a special area where a certified drug detection canine Mina handled by Officer Brian Thorla, with the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department, was run on the exterior of the package to examine the earlier described parcel for the odor of a controlled substance. The examination of the parcel indicated that the odor of a controlled substance was emitting from the parcel. Officer Thorla then prepared a search warrant for the parcel. Once it was granted, Indiana State Police Sergeant Taylor Shafer and Officer Thorla opened the parcel and found the new purchased sealed box with extra external tape contained U.S. Currency. Upon executing the search warrant and the currency being recovered, narcotic detection canine Mina and Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department Officer Brian Thorla conducted a blind search of the listed currency. Canine Mina gave a positive indication to a narcotic odor. The indication confirmed that the currency has a threshold of narcotic contamination. The currency was later bank counted and was converted to a cashier’s check by Chase Bank with for (amount of cash) made out to USCBP. All evidence was then turned over to Indiana State Police Trooper William Etter for processing and handling. The cashier’s check was submitted to the Indiana State Police Lab for storage and the box turned over to Homeland Security Investigations for further investigative follow up on the out of state sender and receivers. Further additional follow up will be conducted by the Indiana State Police forfeiture and Drug Enforcement Section and Homeland Security Investigations. Notifications to the sender and receiver of the law enforcement seizure were posted on the shipping companies tracking information with the seizing law enforcement agency name and contact numbers for further follow up. Based on the Canine alerts of the currency described above and the shipping labels also described above that showed a lack of information that is consistent with other overnight parcels and the concealment, label deception, and currency denominations listed in the search warrant return (attached) and information described in the search warrant affidavit (attached). I believe that the above described parcels and U.S. Currency seized from that parcels are consistent with bulk cash smuggling associated with drug trafficking and the proceeds of drug trafficking, bulk cash smuggling, money laundering, involving the proactive attempts of concealing currency as listed above and in the attached search warrants and returns. I request probable cause be found for the seizure of the above seized U.S. Currency. All of the aforementioned events occurred in Marion County, Indiana. I swear (affirm), under penalty of perjury that the foregoing representations are true.
After this is signed, the Marion County Prosecutor, in Indiana, will file a motion to transfer seized property to the United States, which states something similar to the following: Comes now the State of Indiana, Marion County Deputy Prosecutor, and pursuant to Indiana Code 35-33-5-5(j), moves the Court to issue a Transfer Order authorizing the State to turn over to the appropriate federal authority certain property seized from the above-captioned subject(s), and held by the State. In support of this motion, the following good and sufficient reasons are given: 1. Officers of the Plaintiff executed a valid and duly signed search warrant at 6648 S. Perimeter Rd., Indianapolis, Indiana (the FedEx sort center in Indianapolis). During the execution of said search warrant, U.S. currency was discovered and confiscated as proceeds of narcotics trafficking under Indiana Code 35-48-4-1 and/or money laundering under Indiana Code 35-45-15-5; 2. Said currency had been furnished or was intended to be furnished in exchange for a violation of a criminal statute (Indiana Code 35-48-4-1 and/or Ind. Code 35-45-15-5), or is traceable as proceeds of narcotics trafficking and/or money laundering, a Violation of a criminal statute; 3. A copy of the probable cause affidavit, search warrant and search warrant return are attached to this motion as supporting documents; 4. Based on federal asset forfeiture statutes, the funds and property previously discussed are eligible for forfeiture through the federal court system; 5. Plaintiff believes it is in the best interest of justice and judicial economy for the items listed to be turned over to the appropriate federal authorities for forfeiture proceedings; 6. Should this motion to transfer seized property be granted, the aforementioned U.S. currency will be turned over to the appropriate federal authority; 7. An ex-parte motion for probable cause determination is being filed along with this motion, in compliance with Indiana Code 34-24-1-2; and 8. Upon the granting of the motion for probable cause determination, this motion will be served on the Defendants. Wherefore, the State of Indiana, by Marion County Deputy Prosecutor, respectfully requests, pursuant to Indiana Code 35-33-5-5(j), that this Court issue a Transfer Order authorizing the State of Indiana to turn over the aforementioned property to the appropriate federal authorities for purposes of a federal forfeiture action.
The supporting affidavit will generally state something similar to the following: Officer Brian Thorla initially removed the suspect parcel from sorting at the local shipping company based on parcel indicators he gained through experience with parcel interdiction. The parcel indicators used for this suspect parcel are as follows: 1. The suspect parcel was a white new FedEx box that was not reused. Officer Brian Thorla has learned that FedEx boxes are rare as most business use their own boxes for shipments. Additionally, Officer Brian Thorla has learned that individuals involved in narcotics trafficking, bulk cash smuggling, and money laundering like to use new boxes because they are not contaminated with a narcotic odor; 2. The suspect parcel had a piece of tape over the flap of the FedEx box that was not necessary. Officer Brian Thorla has learned that individuals involved in narcotics trafficking, bulk cash smuggling, and money laundering unnecessarily or heavily tape their parcels to keep the narcotic odor inside the box; 3. The suspect parcel was shipped priority overnight. Officer Brian Thorla has learned priority overnight is a costly method and is used mainly by businesses. Individuals involved in controlled substance trafficking, bulk cash smuggling, and money laundering want their parcels on time and a delayed parcel can signal law enforcement involvement; 4. The suspect parcel was shipped to a source state. Officer Brian Thorla has learned through his experience with parcel interdiction that narcotics flow from the west coast to the east coast and money flows from the east coast to the west coast; 5. The suspect parcel was shipped without signature upon delivery required. Officer Brian Thorla has learned that individuals involved in trafficking of controlled substances, bulk cash smuggling, and money laundering do not send parcels containing U.S. Currency with signature required upon delivery. Those individuals can remain anonymous and pick up the parcels from the front porch of a residence; 6. Shipping of the suspect parcel was paid for by cash. Officer Brian Thorla has learned that individuals involved in narcotics trafficking, bulk cash smuggling, and money laundering pay for their parcel’s shipping by cash because it allows those individuals to remain anonymous; 7. The suspect parcel was shipped to a FedEx store and not a residence. Officer Brian Thorla has learned that this allows individuals involved in narcotics trafficking, bulk cash smuggling, and money laundering to remain anonymous and watch for law enforcement; and 8. The sending address of the suspect parcel was a business name; however, Officer Brian Thorla researched the address and found the address to be a post office. Officer Brian Thorla has learned that this method allows individuals involved in narcotics trafficking, bulk cash smuggling, and money laundering to remain anonymous and watch for law enforcement.
Officer Brian Thorla is partnered with K9 Hogan (or Mina). K9 Hogan (or Mina) has several years of experience working as a narcotics detection K9. Officer Brian Thorla trains with his K9 three to four times per month. The K9 is trained to only alert to narcotic odors, not circulated or uncirculated U.S. currency that does not contain narcotic odors. The K9 positively alerted to the presence of narcotic odor on the suspect parcel after two examinations: The first examination was conducted at the local shipping company with ten (10) to thirty (30) similar parcels. The second examination was conducted at another facility with at least three (3) other similar sized parcels. Officer Brian Thorla obtained a search warrant for the suspect parcel based on, among other things, the parcel indicators and the positive K9 examinations. The search warrant allowed for the search and seizure of “controlled substances, illegal controlled substances (Marijuana, Methamphetamine, Cocaine, Heroin, MDMA) also records of drug trafficking and proceeds of drug trafficking, bulk cash smuggling, money laundering, involving the proactive attempts of concealing currency as listed in the affidavit; as well as money orders and gift cards.” There was also evidence of: excessive or heavy taping, masking agents heat sealed or vacuum packed bags, layers of carbon paper, multiple layers of aluminum foil, sealed liquid plastic or spray foam insulation, air fresheners, dryer sheets, axle grease, fabric softener, perfume, deodorizers, mustard, spray foam insulation, scented packing peanuts, dirty diapers, concealment of the currency in candles, auto parts, shoes, clothing, stuffed animals or toys, ceramics and other figurines or food items such as coffee, sauces, bread, cereal, electronics such as DVD players and stereos, between pages of books, magazines or miniature safes.
If you have cash that was seized and have questions about your case, please call me for a free consultation. If the cash was being sent for completely innocent purposes, we may be able to recover the entire amount. However, even if the money was being sent under suspicious circumstances, it is likely that we will be able to recover a portion of the cash through settlement, without you testifying or appearing in Court.
Parallel Criminal Charges and Forfeiture Litigation
One of the most complicated aspects of forfeiture litigation is the interaction between the forfeiture proceeding and the underlying criminal case. In many situations, actions that help a person in the forfeiture case can potentially hurt them in the criminal case. For example, asserting ownership over seized property may strengthen standing in the forfeiture proceeding while simultaneously creating evidentiary risks in the criminal prosecution.
Similarly, civil discovery procedures available in forfeiture cases can create significant strategic concerns when parallel criminal charges are pending. Statements made in one proceeding may later be used in another. Fifth Amendment considerations therefore become critically important in many forfeiture cases.
Because of these issues, forfeiture cases require a coordinated defense strategy rather than isolated litigation. An attorney handling these matters must understand how the criminal defense strategy, suppression litigation, constitutional issues, and forfeiture proceedings all interact together.
Cash Seizures During Indiana Traffic Stops
Indiana law enforcement agencies frequently seize large amounts of cash during traffic stops. Officers often claim that currency packaging, nervous behavior, inconsistent travel plans, alleged marijuana odor, hidden compartments, or canine alerts establish probable cause that the money constitutes narcotics proceeds. However, many individuals legitimately travel with large amounts of cash for business, family, travel, vehicle purchases, or lawful personal reasons.
One of the most important issues in these cases is whether officers unlawfully prolonged the traffic stop in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Officers frequently attempt to extend traffic stops while waiting for canine units or developing additional suspicion unrelated to the original purpose of the stop. These unlawful prolongation issues frequently become central suppression issues in both the criminal case and forfeiture proceeding.
I have handled cases involving interstate traffic stop seizures, alleged hidden compartments, disputed ownership issues, and seizures where no criminal charges were ultimately filed. In many situations, the government’s evidence is substantially weaker than prosecutors initially claim.
Dearborn County Indiana Forfeiture Cases
I also handle forfeiture cases throughout Indiana, including Dearborn County. In my experience, Dearborn County forfeiture matters often involve particularly aggressive charging practices and broad multi-defendant investigations. In many situations, prosecutors attempt to pursue criminal charges and forfeiture proceedings against individuals who may have no meaningful involvement in the alleged criminal conduct.
For example, I represented a client in Dearborn County who was charged with a Level 5 felony while also facing forfeiture allegations tied to the investigation. After aggressively litigating the matter, I obtained dismissal of the criminal case and my client did not have to surrender any property through forfeiture proceedings.
Cases like this demonstrate why forfeiture proceedings must be approached strategically from the very beginning. In many situations, the forfeiture case becomes just as important as the criminal case itself because the government is attempting to permanently seize vehicles, cash, firearms, or even homes belonging to the accused or family members.
Innocent Owner Defenses and Family Property
Many forfeiture cases involve innocent owners whose property was allegedly used by someone else involved in criminal activity. Common examples include vehicles jointly used by family members, homes shared with relatives, business property, or jointly owned bank accounts.
I have represented numerous individuals whose property was seized despite the fact they were not directly involved in criminal activity. In many situations, innocent owners feel enormous pressure to simply surrender property because they are intimidated by the complexity of forfeiture litigation. However, innocent owners possess important constitutional and statutory protections that can often be asserted successfully through aggressive representation.
Frequently Asked Questions About Indiana Forfeiture Cases
Can police seize my property even if I am never convicted of a crime?
Yes. One of the most controversial aspects of civil forfeiture law is that the government may attempt forfeiture even without obtaining a criminal conviction. In some situations, no criminal charges are ever filed at all.
Why does the government transfer Indiana forfeiture cases to federal authorities?
Indiana agencies frequently transfer seizures to federal authorities through the equitable sharing program because federal forfeiture procedures may be perceived as more favorable to law enforcement. After forfeiture occurs, local agencies often receive a significant percentage of the proceeds back from the federal government.
Why do drug dogs alert to ordinary currency?
Circulated United States currency frequently contains trace amounts of narcotics residue, especially cocaine contamination. This creates substantial reliability concerns in modern forfeiture litigation involving canine alerts to currency.
What happens if my criminal case is dismissed but the forfeiture case remains?
Unfortunately, forfeiture cases sometimes continue even after criminal charges are dismissed. This is one reason why forfeiture proceedings require aggressive independent litigation rather than assuming dismissal of the criminal case automatically resolves the property issues.
Can the government seize jointly owned property?
Yes. Joint ownership issues arise frequently in forfeiture litigation involving vehicles, homes, and bank accounts. However, innocent-owner defenses may still apply depending upon the facts of the case.
Can I recover seized FedEx cash?
Potentially yes. Many package interdiction cases involve substantial litigation concerning ownership, standing, canine reliability, constitutional search issues, and whether the government can actually prove the currency was tied to criminal conduct.
Do I need an attorney for a forfeiture case?
Absolutely. Forfeiture proceedings involve complex constitutional issues, strict deadlines, procedural traps, and strategic concerns that can permanently affect both your property rights and criminal defense strategy.
Contact My Office for a Free Indiana Forfeiture Consultation
If your cash, vehicle, home, firearm, bank account, or other property has been seized in Indiana, contact my office immediately. Early intervention is often critical in forfeiture cases because strict deadlines may apply and strategic mistakes made early in the case can have devastating consequences later.
I handle forfeiture matters throughout Indiana involving FedEx cash seizures, package interdiction investigations, vehicle forfeitures, federal turnover cases, cash seizures during traffic stops, innocent-owner litigation, and complex constitutional forfeiture matters.
Call 317-695-7700 for a free consultation.
Contact Jeff Cardella for a Free Consultation
If you have additional questions, call me for a free consultation to discuss your case.Phone: 317-695-7700
Email: jeffcardella@cardellalawoffice.com
Address: 350 Massachusetts Ave #357, Indianapolis, IN 46204
Counties We Serve
I handle criminal defense cases throughout the entire State of Indiana, with a focus on the following locations:
- Indianapolis, Marion County, Indiana
- Noblesville, Carmel & Fishers, Hamilton County, Indiana
- Danville, Plainfield & Avon, Hendricks County, Indiana
- Franklin & Greenwood, Johnson County, Indiana
- Hancock County, Indiana
- Madison County, Indiana
- Muncie, Delaware County, Indiana
- Bloomington, Monroe County, Indiana
- Lebanon & Zionsville, Boone County, Indiana
- Shelbyville, Shelby County, Indiana
- Morgan County, Indiana
- Lafayette, Tippecanoe County, Indiana
- Parke County, Indiana
- Rush County, Indiana
- South Bend, St. Joseph County, Indiana