If you have been accused of Invasion of Privacy (violating a no contact order, protective order, or restraining order) please call me for a free consultation. I have practiced criminal defense my entire career, teach criminal law at the IU School of Law, and have personally handled thousands of cases. Additional information about my office is available on the home page and the in the news page.
Huber v. State, 805 N.E.2d 887 (Ind. App. 2004), Court of Appeals – Fifth District – 4/6/04
– Wife obtained a protective order against Δ, who had notice of the protective order. Wife also was assigned a victim’s advocate. The advocate accidentally called Δ and left a message. Δ called the advocate and yelled at her. Δ said if the advocate continued to help the wife “things were not going to be real pretty” and that the wife knew what that meant. Δ also asked the advocate to call the wife and ask why the wife was doing this to him. The advocate told Δ that she would not contact the wife. Δ was charged with Invasion of Privacy. After being convicted at trial, Δ appealed, arguing that there was no contact.
– “Huber must have knowingly or intentionally violated a Protective Order, which means that he abused, harassed or disturbed the peace of [the wife], either by direct or indirect contact. Put another way, to violate the protective order, [the defendant] must have contacted [the wife], directly or indirectly. The evidence simply does not support this.” Huber at 892.
– “[The advocate] specifically told [the defendant] that she could not convey the message; therefore, [the defendant’s] attempt to contact [the wife] indirectly through [the advocate] was incomplete.” Huber at 892.
– Δ’s conviction for Invasion of Privacy is reversed.
Civil IOP and Jail Time
Flash v. Holtsclaw, 789 N.E.2d 955 (Ind. App. 2003) Court of Appeals – 4th District – 4/21/03
– Petitioner obtained PO against Respondent. A petition for contempt was filed. Respondent was found in contempt of court for violating the PO. Respondent was sentenced to sixty (60) days with a suspended sentence, on the condition that Respondent have no contact with Petitioner. A second petition for contempt was filed. The Court found Respondent in violation of the second petition for contempt. The court ordered Respondent to serve the previously suspended sixty (60) days and an additional ninety (90) days.
– “A court’s inherent civil contempt powers are both coercive and remedial in nature. The primary objective of a civil contempt proceeding is not to punish the contemnor, but to coerce action or to compensate the aggrieved party. In a civil contempt action, imprisonment is for the purpose of coercing compliance with the order. Nevertheless, a contempt order which neither coerces compliance with a court order or compensates the aggrieved party for loss, and does not offer an opportunity for the recalcitrant party to purge himself, may not be imposed in a civil contempt proceeding.” Flash at 959.
– “The trial court properly ordered Flash to serve the sixty-day suspended sentence. The suspended sentence order was clearly intended to coerce Flash’s compliance with the protective order. He was afforded the opportunity to purge himself of contempt, and avoid serving the sentence, by adhering to the protective order. He failed to do so. However, the ninety-day additional sentence is purely punitive. The order punishes a past act, and affords Flash no opportunity to avoid the term of imprisonment. As such, it is improper in civil contempt proceedings.” Flash at 959.
IC § 35-46-1-15.1 Invasion of privacy; offense; penalties
(a) A person who knowingly or intentionally violates:
(3) a workplace violence restraining order issued under IC 34-26-6;
(4) a no contact order in a dispositional decree issued under IC 31-34-20-1, IC 31-37-19-1, or IC 31-37-5-6 (or IC 31-6-4-15.4 or IC 31-6-4-15.9 before their repeal) or an order issued under IC 31-32-13 (or IC 31-6-7-14 before its repeal) that orders the person to refrain from direct or indirect contact with a child in need of services or a delinquent child;
(5) a no contact order issued as a condition of pretrial release, including release on bail or personal recognizance, or pretrial diversion, and including a no contact order issued under IC 35-33-8-3.6;
(6) a no contact order issued as a condition of probation;
(8) a protective order to prevent domestic or family violence issued under IC 31-14-16-1 in a paternity action;
(9) an order issued in another state that is substantially similar to an order described in subdivisions (1) through (8);
(10) an order that is substantially similar to an order described in subdivisions (1) through (8) and is issued by an Indian:
(D) nation; or
(E) organized group or community, including an Alaska Native village or regional or village corporation as defined in or established under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.);
that is recognized as eligible for the special programs and services provided by the United States to Indians because of their special status as Indians;
(11) an order issued under IC 35-33-8-3.2; or
(12) an order issued under IC 35-38-1-30;
commits invasion of privacy, a Class A misdemeanor. However, the offense is a Level 6 felony. if the person has a prior unrelated conviction for an offense under this subsection.
(b) It is not a defense to a prosecution under subsection (a) that the accused person used or operated an unmanned aerial vehicle in committing the violation.
(c) A sex offender under IC 11-8-8-4.5 who:
(1) establishes a new residence within a one (1) mile radius of the residence of the victim of the offender’s sex offense;
(2) intends to reside (as defined in IC 35-42-4-11(b)) at the residence; and
(3) at the time the sex offender established the residence, knew or reasonably should have known that the residence was located within a one (1) mile radius of the residence of the victim of the offender’s sex offense;
commits invasion of privacy, a Class A misdemeanor. However, the offense is a Level 6 felony if the sex offender has a prior unrelated conviction under this subsection.
(d) The victim of the sex offender’s sex offense may not be prosecuted under subsection (c) if the victim’s liability is based on aiding, inducing, or causing the offender to commit the offense described in subsection (c).
For additional information, click here.
If you are in need of an Indiana expungement attorney, Indiana criminal defense attorney, or forfeiture attorney, please call me for a free consultation at 317-695-7700. I have personally defended thousands of cases, teach criminal law at the IU School of Law, am a top rated attorney, and have practiced criminal defense my entire career. Additional information about my office is available on the home page and the in the news page.
DISCLAIMER – The information contained on this website is provided for educational and informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice or as an offer to perform legal services on any subject matter. The content of this web site contains general information and may not reflect current legal developments or information. The information is not guaranteed to be correct, complete or current. We make no warranty, expressed or implied, about the accuracy or reliability of the information at this website or at any other website to which it is linked. Recipients of content from this site should not act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information included in the site without seeking appropriate legal advice on the particular facts and circumstances at issue from an attorney licensed in the recipient’s state. Nothing herein is intended to create an attorney-client relationship and shall not be construed as legal advice. This is not an offer to represent you, nor is it intended to create an attorney-client relationship.