Court Opinion

ID: 9720141
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:17:39.889442+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:13.537686
License: Public Domain

MATTINGLY-MAY, Judge,
concurring with separate opinion
I agree with the majority that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Amwest's motions, but I write separately to express my concerns with respect to two issues.
First, the majority is correct that the Department's position did not interfere with Amwest's right to apprehend and surrender the defendants. However, I disagree with the majority's conclusion that "Amwest should have apprehended Martinez and Munoz and attempted to surrender them to the Department." (Maj. Op. at 871.) Amwest had been told by the Department that if it attempted to surrender Martinez and Munoz without active arrest warrants, it could be charged with making a false arrest. I do not believe Amwest was obliged to risk an action for false arrest in order to protect its interests.
The Department's insistence on active arrest warrants did not, however, preclude Amwest from pursuing its rights. It could have, as the majority notes, "sought relief in the trial court, either by requesting clarification of its statutory rights or by requesting arrest warrants." (Maj. Op. at 871.) It was Amwest's failure to do either, and not the Department's actions, that caused the eventual forfeiture of the bonds.
Second, I would clarify that Judge Shewmaker acted appropriately when he declined to see an Amwest employee. Ind. *872Judicial Conduct,. Canon 3 provides that, subject to certain exceptions not applicable here, "[a] judge shall not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications, or consider other communications made to the judge outside the presence of the parties, concerning a pending or impending proceeding...." The criminal matters involving Martinez and Munoz were pending proceedings. Judge Shewmaker appropriately declined to see an Amwest employee outside the presence of the prosecuting attorney and the defendants' counsel. Further, the judge's actions did not prevent Amwest from filing for an arrest warrant or asking for another hearing on the matter of bond.