Attorneys argue against swearing-in requirement

INDIANAPOLIS – Attorneys for the state asked the Indiana Supreme Court on Wednesday to overturn a judge’s ruling that an arrest was invalid because the officer had not been sworn in as a member of Indianapolis’ merged police department.\nThat ruling called into question nearly all arrests made by Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department officers since the agency was formed Jan. 1. The agency is a merger of the Indianapolis Police and Marion County Sheriff’s departments.\nAttorneys for a woman arrested on a drunken driving charge in January argued that while Officer William Bueckers had been sworn in as an IPD officer, his status did not automatically carry over to the new department.\nDeputy Attorney General Cynthia Ploughe told the justices that state law requires an oath only of officers who train others at the law enforcement academy.\n“There is no law that requires officers of the IMPD to be sworn,” Ploughe said.\nJustices asked defense attorney James Voyles to explain why he believed officers needed to be sworn in after the merger when the same officers had already taken an oath.\n“Why does the prior oath evaporate?” Justice Brent Dickson asked.\nVoyles said anytime a police officer begins work for a new agency, the oath should be administered.\nVoyles had asked a Marion Superior Court judge to suppress any evidence gathered from his client’s arrest.\n“It’s not a simple matter,” Voyles said. “It’s a matter involving our constitutional protections when we put officers on the street.”\nWhile Marion County Sheriff Frank Anderson and other high-ranking officers attended a swearing-in ceremony the day after the merger became official, most officers did not.\n“We are only saying in this case that Officer Bueckers had already taken the oath under IPD and his employment continued seamlessly from IPD to IMPD,” Ploughe said