A TTORNEY FOR H ON

. T. E DWARD P AGE , A TTORNEYS FOR THE C OMMISSION

S ENIOR J UDGE ON J UDICIAL Q UALIFICATIONS
James H. Voyles Adrienne L

. Meiring Voyles Zahn & Paul Mary Elizabeth Daulton Indianapolis, Indiana Indianapolis, Indiana

______________________________________________________________________________ 

# In the 

# Indiana Supreme Court

_________________________________ No

. 9 4 S00

- 1 701

- JD

- 3

I N THE M ATTER OF TH E H ONORABLE T. E DWARD P AGE , S ENIOR J UDGE

_________________________________ 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 a nd 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 sout h

bound 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 Nor th. After stopping Respondent ’ s vehicle and approaching Respondent, the deputy noticed an odor of alcohol on Respondent ’ sbreath 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 cha rged in Porter Superior Court with Class A

m isdemeanor Operating a Vehicle While Intoxicated Endangering a Person, Class C m isdemeanor Operating a Vehicle While Intoxicated, and Class A misdemeanor Operating a Vehicle with an Alcohol Concentration Equivale nt to .15 or More. On November 15, 2016, he plea ded 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 C

misdemeanor offense and sentenced Respondent to 60 days in jail, w ith 59 days suspended and
credit for 1 day served in jail. The court also placed Respondent on unsupervised probation for 1 80 days, imposed an ignition interlock requirement on his driving privileges until December 7, 20 1 6, 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 i n aggravation . I n mitigation, t hey agree that Respondent immed

iately 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

. T hey
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.