Opinion ID: 853588
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: What Penalty Is Proper?

Text: Each of the arguments offered by MDSI actually speak to an issue different from IDEM's power to assess civil penalties. MDSI asserts that the governing laws were in a state of flux which, by IDEM's own admission, necessitated clarification. Moreover, argues MDSI, the legislature later legalized these exact activities. MDSI also points to its exemplary behavior at all stages of these proceedings, including the fact that [t]he minute Judge Smart entered his decision deciding that infectious waste was included in the definition of solid waste, MDSI halted operations in Hammond. (Appellee's Br. at 13-14.) [9] According to MDSI, [t]hese aren't the kind of people who should be billy-clubbed with a monstrous assessment of civil penalties just because they disagreed with mighty IDEM. [10] ( Id. at 14.) Finally, MDSI maintains that the civil penalties sought by IDEM here are so outlandish as to violate the United States and Indiana Constitutions' prohibitions against excessive fines. See U.S. Const. amend. VIII; Ind. Const. art. I, § 16. None of these arguments abrogate IDEM's statutory power to assess civil penalties against violators, but might well be properly considered in determining an appropriate penalty. IDEM's clarification of the law and the General Assembly's subsequent legalization of the activity might be considered mitigating in determining the amount MDSI must pay, but do not mean that MDSI may not be fined at all. Whether the actual fines imposed by IDEM are appropriate is a factual matter that must be addressed at the trial court. As IDEM itself points out: [O]n remand, the amount of civil penalties is a matter for the trial judge's discretion. Many of the factors Medical Disposal raises in its brief, including its asserted good faith, could be considered by the trial court in a discretionary determination of the proper penalty. The trial court might also give weight to Medical Disposal's argument that lenity is appropriate where new legal ground is being explored, Brief of Appellee at 17-21. But that doctrine does not, by itself, preclude penalties altogether in this case. (Appellant's Reply Br. at 5.) The remainder of this action must be spent figuring out the appropriate penalty, at which time MDSI's arguments about being billy-clubbed for minor violations when in fact Medical Disposal at all times acted in absolute good faith, (Appellee's Br. at 14, 25), can be heard in full. The trial court can also hear full argument on whether IDEM may use displacement of profits or leveling the playing field among competitors as reasons for imposing the maximum penalty allowed. The court can also weigh the parties' evidence on the seriousness of the environmental threat posed by the IMK facility. [11] The trial court is the proper venue for resolution of these factual matters. The stated purpose of the Environmental Management Act is to preserve, protect, and enhance the quality of the environment so that, to the extent possible, future generations will be ensured clean air, clean water, and a healthful environment. See Ind.Code Ann. § 13-12-3-1(3) (West 1998) (formerly Ind.Code § 13-7-1-1-(a)). The penalty assessed on remand should reflect those principles and the relative gravity of the infraction.