ATTORNEY FOR HON. T. EDWARD PAGE, ATTORNEYS FOR THE COMMISSION 

SENIOR JUDGE ON JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS 

James H. Voyles Adrienne L. Meiring

Voyles Zahn & Paul Mary Elizabeth Daulton

Indianapolis, Indiana Indianapolis, Indiana

______________________________________________________________________________

In the

Indiana Supreme Court 

_________________________________

No. 94S00-1701-JD-3

IN THE MATTER OF THE HONORABLE

T. EDWARD PAGE, SENIOR JUDGE

_________________________________

JUDICIAL DISCIPLINARY ACTION

_________________________________

February 20, 2017

Per Curiam.

This matter comes before the Court as a result of a judicial disciplinary action brought by 

the Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications (“Commission”) against Respondent herein, T. 

Edward Page, Senior Judge. Article 7, Section 4 of the Indiana Constitution and Indiana Admission

and Discipline Rule 25 give the Indiana Supreme Court original jurisdiction over this matter.

In lieu of Respondent tendering a written response to the charges, the parties jointly tendered

a “Statement of Circumstances and Conditional Agreement for Discipline” in which the parties 

have stipulated to the following facts. On the night of Saturday, October 1, 2016, a Porter County 

Sheriff’s Department deputy responded to 911 calls from two different individuals about a southbound vehicle periodically veering into northbound traffic on Indiana State Road 149 in Porter 

County. The deputy observed a vehicle matching the description provided by one of the 911 callers 

driving slowly on State Road 149 in the area of C.R. 550 North. After stopping Respondent’s 

vehicle and approaching Respondent, the deputy noticed an odor of alcohol on Respondent’s 
breath and person. Respondent’s speech was slurred, his eyes were watery, his manual dexterity 

was poor, and his balance was unsteady. He failed at least three field sobriety tests, and when he

consented to a preliminary breath test, the result was .20 BAC. He then voluntarily gave a blood 

sample at Valparaiso Medical Center in Lake County. 

Respondent was arrested and subsequently charged in Porter Superior Court with Class A

misdemeanor Operating a Vehicle While Intoxicated Endangering a Person, Class C misdemeanor 

Operating a Vehicle While Intoxicated, and Class A misdemeanor Operating a Vehicle with an 

Alcohol Concentration Equivalent to .15 or More. On November 15, 2016, he pleaded guilty under 

a plea agreement to Operating a Vehicle While Intoxicated, a Class C misdemeanor, and the State 

dismissed the remaining charges. The trial court entered judgment of conviction against on the Cmisdemeanor offense and sentenced Respondent to 60 days in jail, with 59 days suspended and 

credit for 1 day served in jail. The court also placed Respondent on unsupervised probation for 180 

days, imposed an ignition interlock requirement on his driving privileges until December 7, 2016, 

and imposed fines and court costs of $883.50.

Respondent and the Commission agree that by being arrested and convicted for Operating a 

Motor Vehicle While Intoxicated, Respondent violated Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 1.1 requiring

judges to comply with the law, and Rule 1.2 requiring judges to avoid impropriety and to act at all 

times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary. 

The parties cite no facts in aggravation. In mitigation, they agree that Respondent immediately self-reported his misconduct and voluntarily contacted the Judges and Lawyers Assistance 

Program (JLAP); that he is compliant with all JLAP requests; that he has been fully cooperative 

with the Commission throughout its investigation; and that he is remorseful for his conduct. They 

also agree that under the circumstances, the appropriate sanction is a public reprimand. The Court 

agrees with the parties.

Accordingly, T. Edward Page, Senior Judge, is hereby reprimanded. This discipline 

terminates the disciplinary proceedings relating to the circumstances giving rise to this cause. The 

costs of this proceeding are assessed against Respondent.

All Justices concur.