Sec. 1. (a) An action to enforce a statute defining an
infraction shall be brought in the name of the state of Indiana by the
prosecuting attorney for the judicial circuit in which the infraction
allegedly took place. However, if the infraction allegedly took place on
a public highway (as defined in IC 9-25-2-4) that runs on and along a
common boundary shared by two (2) or more judicial circuits, a
prosecuting attorney for any judicial circuit sharing the common
boundary may bring the action.
(b) An action to enforce an ordinance shall be brought in the name
of the municipal corporation. The municipal corporation need not
prove that it or the ordinance is valid unless validity is controverted by
affidavit.
(c) Actions under this chapter (or IC 34-4-32 before its repeal):
(1) shall be conducted in accordance with the Indiana Rules of
Trial Procedure; and
(2) must be brought within two (2) years after the alleged conduct
or violation occurred.
(d) The plaintiff in an action under this chapter must prove the
commission of an infraction or ordinance violation by a preponderance
of the evidence.
(e) The complaint and summons described in IC 9-30-3-6 may be
used for any infraction or ordinance violation.
(f) This subsection does not apply to an offense or violation under
IC 9-24-6 (before its repeal) or IC 9-24-6.1 involving the operation of
a commercial motor vehicle. The prosecuting attorney or the attorney
for a municipal corporation may establish a deferral program for
deferring actions brought under this section. Actions may be deferred
under this section if:
(1) the defendant in the action agrees to conditions of a deferral
program offered by the prosecuting attorney or the attorney for a
municipal corporation;
(2) the defendant in the action agrees to pay to the clerk of the
court an initial user's fee and monthly user's fee set by the
prosecuting attorney or the attorney for the municipal corporation
in accordance with IC 33-37-4-2(e);
(3) the terms of the agreement are recorded in an instrument
signed by the defendant and the prosecuting attorney or the
attorney for the municipal corporation;
(4) the defendant in the action agrees to pay a fee of seventy
dollars ($70) to the clerk of court if the action involves a moving
traffic offense (as defined in IC 9-13-2-110);
(5) the agreement is filed in the court in which the action is
brought; and
(6) if the deferral program is offered by the prosecuting attorney,
the prosecuting attorney electronically transmits information
required by the prosecuting attorneys council concerning the
withheld prosecution to the prosecuting attorneys council, in a
manner and format designated by the prosecuting attorneys
council.
When a defendant complies with the terms of an agreement filed under
this subsection (or IC 34-4-32-1(f) before its repeal), the prosecuting
attorney or the attorney for the municipal corporation shall request the
court to dismiss the action. Upon receipt of a request to dismiss an
action under this subsection, the court shall dismiss the action. An
action dismissed under this subsection (or IC 34-4-32-1(f) before its
repeal) may not be refiled.
(g) If a judgment is entered against a defendant in an action to
enforce an ordinance, the defendant may perform community
restitution or service (as defined in IC 35-31.5-2-50) instead of paying
a monetary judgment for the ordinance violation as described in section
4(e) of this chapter if:
(1) the:
(A) defendant; and
(B) attorney for the municipal corporation;
agree to the defendant's performance of community restitution or
service instead of the payment of a monetary judgment;
(2) the terms of the agreement described in subdivision (1):
(A) include the amount of the judgment the municipal
corporation requests that the defendant pay under section 4(e)
of this chapter for the ordinance violation if the defendant fails
to perform the community restitution or service provided for in
the agreement as approved by the court; and
(B) are recorded in a written instrument signed by the defendant
and the attorney for the municipal corporation;
(3) the agreement is filed in the court where the judgment was
entered; and
(4) the court approves the agreement.
If a defendant fails to comply with an agreement approved by a court
under this subsection, the court shall require the defendant to pay up to
the amount of the judgment requested in the action under section 4(e)
of this chapter as if the defendant had not entered into an agreement
under this subsection.
[Pre-1998 Recodification Citation: 34-4-32-1.]
As added by P.L.1-1998, SEC.24. Amended by P.L.98-2000,
SEC.12; P.L.98-2004, SEC.123; P.L.176-2005, SEC.24; P.L.200-2005,
SEC.1; P.L.101-2009, SEC.17; P.L.114-2012, SEC.65; P.L.125-2012,
SEC.412; P.L.198-2016, SEC.667; P.L.110-2020, SEC.9.
Notes of Decisions
In the Matter of William Young, 943 N.E.2d 1276 (Ind. 2011).
· cites it 6× “Respondent also admits that during 2009, when he would give general advisements before each court session to traffic-infraction defendants about the State‟s burden of proof, which was a “preponderance of the evidence” standard, see Ind. Code § 34-28-5-1 (d) (West Supp. 4 2009)…”
Amanda Vaughn v. State of Indiana, 982 N.E.2d 1071 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 4× “§ 31-17-4-8 (authorizing the trial court to order community service in the context of contempt for parenting time violations); and I.C. § 34-28-5-1 (authorizing the trial court to order community service in lieu of a monetary judgment for an ordinance violation).”
Metro. Dev. Comm'n v. Schroeder, 727 N.E.2d 742 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 4× “Code § 36-1-6-3 ("a proceeding to enforce an ordinance must be brought in accordance with IC 34-28-5"); Ind.Code § 34-28-5-1(c)(2) (an action to enforce an ordinance "must be brought within two (2) years after the alleged conduct or violation occurred").”
Boss v. State, 944 N.E.2d 16 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 4× “See Ind. Code Ann. § 34-28-5-1 (d) through (f) (West, Westlaw through 2010 2nd Regular Sess.”
Cunningham v. State, 835 N.E.2d 1075 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 2× “" Ind.Code § 34-28-5-1(a). 6 . In his appellate brief Cunningham request ed that we sanction the trial court, clerk of courts, and prosecutor involved in this case for various injustices that he perceived.”
Taylor v. State, 842 N.E.2d 327 (Ind. 2006).
“§ 34-28-5-1 (setting forth the procedure for actions taken under this provision and declaring they "shall be conducted in accordance with the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure.”
Custer v. Plan Comm'n of City of Garrett, 699 N.E.2d 793 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 4× “Even if we could address that assertion, we would decline to hold that the City’s request for an injunction against Custer was necessarily outside the category of "[a]n action to enforce an ordinance” governed by Section 34-28-5-1 and subject to the two-year restriction.”
Beineke v. Chem. Waste Mgmt. of Indiana, LLC, 868 N.E.2d 534 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 2× “Chemical Waste argues that either one of two statutes applies in this case: Indiana Code Section 34-28-5-1 (c)(2), which provides a two-year limitations period to bring an action based upon an alleged violation of an ordinance, or Indiana Code Section 34-ll-l-2(a), which…”
Preston v. State, 735 N.E.2d 330 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 2× “Code § 9-20-18-12 (listing penalties for violation of weight limitations); Ind. Code § 34-28-5-1 (outlining prosecution of infractions); Wirgau v.”
Owen v. State, 796 N.E.2d 775 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 4× “See Ind.Code § 34-28-5-1(d) (defining burden of proof for infraction proceedings); Ind.”
Hugo Torres v. City of Hammond, No. 45A03-1210-OV-430 (Ind. Ct. App. May 15, 2013).
· cites it 5× “3 Under a prior version of Indiana Code section 34-28-5-1, a panel of this Court determined that “it is apparent that the legislature intended that legal proceedings for traffic infractions be conducted consistent with the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure, but also that the…”
Ind. Code § 34-28-5-1(a): 1 case
Cunningham v. State, 835 N.E.2d 1075 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
“" Ind.Code § 34-28-5-1(a). 6 . In his appellate brief Cunningham request ed that we sanction the trial court, clerk of courts, and prosecutor involved in this case for various injustices that he perceived.”
Ind. Code § 34-28-5-1(c)(2): 2 cases
Metro. Dev. Comm'n v. Schroeder, 727 N.E.2d 742 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000).
“Code § 36-1-6-3 ("a proceeding to enforce an ordinance must be brought in accordance with IC 34-28-5"); Ind.Code § 34-28-5-1(c)(2) (an action to enforce an ordinance "must be brought within two (2) years after the alleged conduct or violation occurred").”
Custer v. Plan Comm'n of City of Garrett, 699 N.E.2d 793 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998).
“Even if we could address that assertion, we would decline to hold that the City’s request for an injunction against Custer was necessarily outside the category of "[a]n action to enforce an ordinance” governed by Section 34-28-5-1 and subject to the two-year restriction.”
Ind. Code § 34-28-5-1(d): 2 cases
Owen v. State, 796 N.E.2d 775 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).
“See Ind.Code § 34-28-5-1(d) (defining burden of proof for infraction proceedings); Ind.”
Hugo Torres v. City of Hammond, No. 45A03-1210-OV-430 (Ind. Ct. App. May 15, 2013).
“3 Under a prior version of Indiana Code section 34-28-5-1, a panel of this Court determined that “it is apparent that the legislature intended that legal proceedings for traffic infractions be conducted consistent with the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure, but also that the…”
Ind. Code § 34-28-5-1(d)(1): 1 case
Hugo Torres v. City of Hammond, No. 45A03-1210-OV-430 (Ind. Ct. App. May 15, 2013).
“3 Under a prior version of Indiana Code section 34-28-5-1, a panel of this Court determined that “it is apparent that the legislature intended that legal proceedings for traffic infractions be conducted consistent with the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure, but also that the…”
Ind. Code § 34-28-5-1(f): 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.