County directory in indianapolis marion offender sex

Documentation indicates this offense involved the offender engaging in sexual contact with a 5-year-old male and a 7-year-old male. This offender's most recent sexual offense conviction was for two counts of indecency with a child in the second degree. He was convicted of engaging in sexual contact with a 7-year-old female. These offenses involved the offender engaging in sexual activity with a year-old female beginning at age 5.

The offense involved two year-old females. Thomas L. The offense involved the offender chatting with a year-old female stranger on the Internet about sexual acts and exposing himself to her. Mark Lane, 54, Marion County , Flippin, brown hair, blue eyes, , pounds. This offender's most recent sexual offense conviction was for five counts of indecent assault of a year-old female. This offender was convicted for two counts of sexual abuse in the first degree. The offense involved a 4-year-old female.

This offender was convicted for two counts of sexual indecency with a child in Documentation indicates he has a history of leaving nude photos of himself in public places, including bus stops for young school students. Documentation indicates this offense involved the offender engaging in sexual contact with a year-old female.

• how to find deleted e-mail.
• Stay Informed.
• Hendricks County Jail Inmate Lookup.
• free access phone address people lookup.
• old property records cole county missouri.
• Find Top Indianapolis, IN Sex Crime Lawyers Near You | Attorney Directory.

During his SOSRA interview, this offender disclosed past sexual encounters involving a year-old female, 5-year-old male, and a year-old female. The offense involved the offender engaging in ongoing sexual contact with two female acquaintances beginning when they were approximately years old and continuing, at least with one of the girls, through the time she was years old.

The offender has a criminal history of sexual violence and sexual exploitation of children The offense involved the offender engaging in frequent sexually explicit chats via the Internet with a year-old female stranger. He sent her hundreds of pornographic images including images of child pornography and arranged to meet her and was arrested. A statute of limitations is a time limit on a criminal prosecution.

In Indiana, murder and Level 1 felonies have no statute of limitations, while most other felonies have a limitation period of five years. If you are charged with a felony, you should contact a criminal defense lawyer in Indiana for help. All felony convictions carry serious consequences, and the stigma of a criminal record can last long after a sentence is served or a fine is paid. Your best chance for a good outcome is to talk to an experienced attorney who can explain how your case is likely to be treated in court and how to protect your rights.

The information provided on this site is not legal advice, does not constitute a lawyer referral service, and no attorney-client or confidential relationship is or will be formed by use of the site. The attorney listings on this site are paid attorney advertising. In some states, the information on this website may be considered a lawyer referral service.

Please reference the Terms of Use and the Supplemental Terms for specific information related to your state. Lawyer Marketing Lawyer Directory. Toggle navigation CriminalDefenseLawyer. Search Term. Defendant claims that there existed several opportunities for inmates to contact correctional officers about problems. For example, Defendant contends that correctional officers made regular "clock rounds," during which they would enter the cell block, check the general security and cleanliness of the area, and investigate any problems.

This opportunity also allows inmates an opportunity to speak to the officers and alert them to problems. The Sheriff contends, if an inmate informs a correctional officer that he is experiencing a conflict with another inmate, or feels threatened by another inmate, that correctional officers "reclassify" the threatened inmate, i.

Breadcrumb

In addition to these regular clock rounds, officers are also present in the block every day to take inmates to court appearances, family and attorney visits, sick call, church and recreation; the correctional officers also enter each block three times a day to deliver meals, and return to collect trays and used utensils.

Defendant notes that a forty-five minute interval such as that which occurred between the beginning of the first assault on Merriweather and the arrival of the correctional officer is consistent with the Jail's policy of requiring correctional officers to make visual inspections of the cells in the Juvenile block roughly every hour. In his Sur-rebuttal brief, Defendant provides the correctional officer log book for the night of December 17, , with the handwritten notes of the times when correctional officers performed patrols that evening. This evidence was never disclosed to Plaintiff during discovery, despite a request from Plaintiff for all documents that correctional officers "made notations on during their shifts.

Plaintiff did not request an opportunity to file a Sur-sur-surreply brief in order to respond to this belatedly produced information or to conduct additional discovery concerning the belatedly disclosed matter.

Defendant contends that during December , inmates in cell block 2-O had access to telephones inside their block and could use them to communicate with anyone to obtain help. Defendant also asserts that inmates could communicate with Jail officials by writing notes on "call cards," which correctional officers collect daily; often times inmates leave "call cards" in between the trays to request protection, if they do not want other inmates to be aware of their request, for correctional officers to find as trays and utensils are counted after each feeding.

Plaintiff counters that correctional officers did not routinely follow the "clock rounds" policy and when the correctional officers did patrol through the cell blocks they did not inspect individual inmates, examine the conditions in the cell block, or investigate problems. Plaintiff further contends that the only way for the inmates to contact correctional officers outside the cell block was by banging on the cell block door, but even then correctional officers did not always timely respond to their calls, if they responded at all.

Plaintiff asserts that the practice of banging on the cell doors created its own problems for inmates because it made obvious to the other inmates that someone was snitching which could result in retaliation and provided the other inmates an opportunity to drowned out the pleas for help. Plaintiff also cites examples of alleged incidents of correctional officers not responding to reports of violence among inmates.

Lastly, Plaintiff reports that the telephones in the cell blocks could only be used to make outside calls and thus could not be used to contact correctional officers for help. See Eric Mathis Dec. Defendant asserts that correctional officers receive training prior to commencing their duty on inmate safety and the prevention of violence and thereafter they receive annual "in-service" instruction which includes inmate safety training. In fact, coincidentally, the topic covered in a recent in-service training session was prevention of rape.

In a motion for summary judgment, the burden rests on the moving party, Defendant, in this case, to demonstrate "that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case. Catrett, U. After the moving party demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue for trial, the responsibility shifts to the non-movant to "go beyond the pleadings" and point to evidence of a genuine factual dispute precluding summary judgment. American Hoechst Corp. Zenith Radio Corp.

Liberty Lobby, Inc. Summary judgment is not a substitute for a trial on the merits, nor is it a vehicle for resolving factual disputes. Waldridge, 24 F. Therefore, in considering a motion for summary judgment, we draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-movant. Venters v. City of Delphi, F. If genuine doubts remain and a reasonable fact-finder could find for the party opposing the motion, summary judgment is inappropriate.

See Shields Enters. First Chicago Corp. City of Fitchburg, F. But if it is clear that a plaintiff will be unable to satisfy the legal requirements necessary to establish his or her case, summary judgment is not only appropriate, but mandated. See Celotex, U. A plaintiff's self-serving statements, unsupported by specific concrete facts reflected in the record, cannot preclude summary judgment. Albiero v.

• Burnett County Jail Roster.
• taylor swift backgrounds for computer.
• curran fromhold correctional facility inmate search.
• Inmate/Offender Information.
• IDENTITY THEFT PROTECTION.
• state of north dakota birth certificate.

City of Kankakee, F. Land O'Lakes, Inc.

Merriweather claims that the Sheriff in his official capacity is liable under 42 U. Protection from the "deliberate indifference" of jail officials towards prisoners' safety is to be afforded both convicted prisoners and pretrial detainees under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, respectively. Palmer v. Marion County, F. Lewis, U. Shepard, F. Cottey, F. City of Chicago, F. Merriweather was a pretrial detainee, having not yet been convicted of a crime. Gutschenritter, F. Massachusetts General Hospital, U. Section creates a federal cause of action for "the deprivation, under color of state law, of a citizen's rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.

Rabinovitz, F. The Due Process Clause "'protects pretrial detainees both from deliberate exposure to violence and from failure to protect when prison officials learn of a strong likelihood that a prisoner will be assaulted. Herr, F. Failure to provide such protection, however, violates constitutional standards only if "'deliberate indifference by prison officials [to the prisoner's welfare] effectively condones the attack by allowing it to happen.

Richards, F. Gross, 86 F. The Seventh Circuit has repeatedly held that deliberate indifference is not a strict liability standard requiring jail officials to ensure the safety of their inmates.