plan fo rmonday
x followup on bmv thingy did tuesday
review gupta ethics filings
x bank $300
also owe water bill 150 or is that right?
x prepare info re emerson. encourage people to come tonight. reddit.
x play w dog
Monday, March 2, 2026
Thursday, February 26, 2026
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY – DO NOT FILE
STATE OF INDIANA ) IN THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT
) SS: CAUSE NO. ____________________
COUNTY OF MARION )
) SS: CAUSE NO. ____________________
COUNTY OF MARION )
Robbin Stewart, )
Plaintiff, )
) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND
v. ) CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS
**) **
Town of Beech Grove, )
Michael Maurice, )
individually and in his official )
capacity as Chief of Police, )
Robert Mercuri, )
individually and in his official )
capacity as Deputy Chief of Police, )
Craig Wiley, )
individually and in his official )
capacity as City Attorney, )
Audra Stanfield, )
individually and in her official )
capacity as Assistant to the Mayor, )
[Officer #1 Name/Badge], )
[Officer #2 Name/Badge], )
individually and in their official )
capacities as Police Officers for the )
Beech Grove Police Department, )
)
Defendants. )
Plaintiff, )
) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND
v. ) CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS
**) **
Town of Beech Grove, )
Michael Maurice, )
individually and in his official )
capacity as Chief of Police, )
Robert Mercuri, )
individually and in his official )
capacity as Deputy Chief of Police, )
Craig Wiley, )
individually and in his official )
capacity as City Attorney, )
Audra Stanfield, )
individually and in her official )
capacity as Assistant to the Mayor, )
[Officer #1 Name/Badge], )
[Officer #2 Name/Badge], )
individually and in their official )
capacities as Police Officers for the )
Beech Grove Police Department, )
)
Defendants. )
I. STATEMENT OF FACTS
- On or about [Date], Robbin Stewart was the equitable owner of a Chrysler Town & Country van ("the Vehicle").
- The Vehicle displayed a plate and sticker which provided reasonable suspicion for an initial investigatory stop, but did not constitute a criminal violation justifying permanent forfeiture or the bypass of a court record.
- During the stop, Defendant Officers #1 and #2 seized the Vehicle and its contents, including sensitive legal files.
- Despite Robbin Stewart's visible physical disability—specifically the use of a mobility cane—the Officers abandoned Robbin Stewart on the roadside miles from his residence.
- During the encounter, Defendant Officer #1 stated to Robbin Stewart: "You are obviously __ ____," a false and malicious statement made with reckless disregard for the truth which was defamation per se and per quod.
- Robbin Stewart contacted Defendant Audra Stanfield to request a meeting with the Mayor regarding the illegal seizure of his property and the conduct of the officers; Defendant Stanfield refused to facilitate the meeting, thereby closing the primary administrative channel for notice and preservation of property. He followed up that day with emails to her and the mayor which they have never responded to.
- Defendant Craig Wiley and the Town failed to provide a pre-deprivation hearing, failed to provide a post-deprivation hearing, and failed to notify Robbin Stewart of the auction location or the fate of the legal files.
- Defendant Craig Wiley explicitly refused to provide the police report, body-worn camera video, dash-camera video, or other requested information; further, these records were not retained despite a timely request for their preservation.
- The Town subsequently committed waste by crushing the functional Vehicle and its contents, despite the Town holding the property as a bailment.
II. CAUSES OF ACTION
COUNT I: Due Course of Law and Right to Remedy (Ind. Const. Art. 1, § 12 & § 1)
10. Defendants deprived Robbin Stewart of property without an opportunity for a hearing. Robbin Stewart seeks $1 nominal and $42,000 actual damages based on the Section 1 right to remedy and the Section 12 due course of law guarantee.
10. Defendants deprived Robbin Stewart of property without an opportunity for a hearing. Robbin Stewart seeks $1 nominal and $42,000 actual damages based on the Section 1 right to remedy and the Section 12 due course of law guarantee.
COUNT II: Unreasonable Seizure (Ind. Const. Art. 1, § 11)
11. Under the Gerschoffer/Litchfield totality test, the seizure was unreasonable. Factors include: valid stop but invalid permanent seizure, retention of legal files, and failure to inform Robbin Stewart of auction details. Robbin Stewart seeks $1 nominal and $42,000 actual damages based on the Section 1 right to remedy.
11. Under the Gerschoffer/Litchfield totality test, the seizure was unreasonable. Factors include: valid stop but invalid permanent seizure, retention of legal files, and failure to inform Robbin Stewart of auction details. Robbin Stewart seeks $1 nominal and $42,000 actual damages based on the Section 1 right to remedy.
COUNT III: State Taking Claim (Ind. Const. Art. 1, § 21)
12. The destruction of the Vehicle constitutes a taking of property for public use/disposal without just compensation. This clause is self-actuating, and Robbin Stewart seeks $4,000 in actual damages for this constitutional violation.
12. The destruction of the Vehicle constitutes a taking of property for public use/disposal without just compensation. This clause is self-actuating, and Robbin Stewart seeks $4,000 in actual damages for this constitutional violation.
COUNT IV: State Proportionality and Excessive Fines (Ind. Const. Art. 1, § 16)
13. The permanent deprivation and crushing of a vehicle for a minor administrative plate discrepancy violates the state constitutional requirement that all penalties be proportioned to the nature of the offense. Robbin Stewart seeks at least nominal damages and $42,000 actual damages.
13. The permanent deprivation and crushing of a vehicle for a minor administrative plate discrepancy violates the state constitutional requirement that all penalties be proportioned to the nature of the offense. Robbin Stewart seeks at least nominal damages and $42,000 actual damages.
COUNT V: Federal 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claims
14.1 4th Amendment: Unreasonable seizure of effects.
14.1 4th Amendment: Unreasonable seizure of effects.
14.2 Due Process, lack of hearing. Supported by the spoliation.
14.3 First Amendment retaliation.
15. 5th Amendment: Taking for public use without just compensation.
16. 8th Amendment: Under Timbs v. Indiana, an unconstitutional excessive fine.
17. 14th Amendment: Denial of Due Process (no "day in court").
18. Monell Liability: Defendants Maurice and Mercuri failed to train/supervise regarding property retention and the Elder Abuse Reporting Statute (IC 12-10-3).
COUNT VI: Conversion (IC 34-24-3-1)
19. Defendants exerted unauthorized control over the Vehicle. Robbin Stewart seeks treble (3x) damages of $42,000, costs, and attorney’s fees.
19. Defendants exerted unauthorized control over the Vehicle. Robbin Stewart seeks treble (3x) damages of $42,000, costs, and attorney’s fees.
COUNT VII: Defamation Per Se and Per Quod
20. The malicious insults and false statements uttered by Defendant Officer #1 were made with actual malice and reckless disregard for the truth. These statements injured Robbin Stewart in his reputation and were defamatory per se and per quod. While the Officers had a qualified privilege, the privilege is overcome here. Robbin Stewart is a public figure, and the topic of the police encounter was one of public concern; therefore, Robbin Stewart alleges and will prove reckless disregard for the truth. The initial statement was reckless, and the months-long failure by the Town and its agents to retract the false claim constitutes an ongoing reckless disregard for the truth. The Town is liable for these damages via respondeat superior. Robbin Stewart seeks $2,000,000.00 in damages.
20. The malicious insults and false statements uttered by Defendant Officer #1 were made with actual malice and reckless disregard for the truth. These statements injured Robbin Stewart in his reputation and were defamatory per se and per quod. While the Officers had a qualified privilege, the privilege is overcome here. Robbin Stewart is a public figure, and the topic of the police encounter was one of public concern; therefore, Robbin Stewart alleges and will prove reckless disregard for the truth. The initial statement was reckless, and the months-long failure by the Town and its agents to retract the false claim constitutes an ongoing reckless disregard for the truth. The Town is liable for these damages via respondeat superior. Robbin Stewart seeks $2,000,000.00 in damages.
COUNT VIII: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED)
21. The "cane and distance" abandonment—specifically the act of leaving a visibly disabled man with a mobility aid on the roadside miles from home while seizing his only means of transport—constitutes extreme and outrageous conduct intended to cause, or in reckless disregard of the probability of causing, severe emotional distress. [omit]
21. The "cane and distance" abandonment—specifically the act of leaving a visibly disabled man with a mobility aid on the roadside miles from home while seizing his only means of transport—constitutes extreme and outrageous conduct intended to cause, or in reckless disregard of the probability of causing, severe emotional distress. [omit]
COUNT IX: Violation of Mandatory Elder Abuse Reporting Duty
22. Under Indiana Code § 12-10-3-9, any individual—including law enforcement officers and the Chief of Police—who has reason to believe that an endangered adult is a victim of exploitation, neglect, or battery shall make a report to Adult Protective Services (APS) or the local law enforcement agency.
23. During the encounter, Robbin Stewart explicitly explained to the Defendant Officers that the issues regarding the Vehicle’s plates were the direct result of elder abuse and stated that he was the victim of a crime; despite this disclosure and Robbin Stewart’s visible physical vulnerability, the Officers failed and refused to initiate an elder abuse report or investigation.
24. Defendant Michael Maurice, as Chief of Police, has maintained an ongoing policy or practice of failing to report such incidents to APS, erroneously believing the duty is limited to abuse occurring strictly within town limits or excluding police conduct.
25. The failure of the Defendant Officers and Defendant Michael Maurice to report these allegations constitutes a breach of a mandatory statutory duty.
22. Under Indiana Code § 12-10-3-9, any individual—including law enforcement officers and the Chief of Police—who has reason to believe that an endangered adult is a victim of exploitation, neglect, or battery shall make a report to Adult Protective Services (APS) or the local law enforcement agency.
23. During the encounter, Robbin Stewart explicitly explained to the Defendant Officers that the issues regarding the Vehicle’s plates were the direct result of elder abuse and stated that he was the victim of a crime; despite this disclosure and Robbin Stewart’s visible physical vulnerability, the Officers failed and refused to initiate an elder abuse report or investigation.
24. Defendant Michael Maurice, as Chief of Police, has maintained an ongoing policy or practice of failing to report such incidents to APS, erroneously believing the duty is limited to abuse occurring strictly within town limits or excluding police conduct.
25. The failure of the Defendant Officers and Defendant Michael Maurice to report these allegations constitutes a breach of a mandatory statutory duty.
26. Approved by 89% of voters in 1996, (Article 1, Section 13b) guarantees victims of crime the right to be treated with fairness, dignity, and respect. These rights are further detailed in Indiana Code 35-40-5. By taking his car in retaliation for his having been a victim, they violated the principles of this section. No separate cause of action is asserted under section 13. (maybe move this to facts section.)
COUNT X: Spoliation & Statutory Violations (APRA)
26. Defendant Craig Wiley intentionally failed to produce and failed to retain public records in violation of IC 5-14-3.
27. Defendants Stanfield and Wiley intentionally failed to preserve the physical evidence despite being on notice.
26. Defendant Craig Wiley intentionally failed to produce and failed to retain public records in violation of IC 5-14-3.
27. Defendants Stanfield and Wiley intentionally failed to preserve the physical evidence despite being on notice.
III. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Robbin Stewart respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, for the following:
- Compensatory damages in the amount of $42,000.00 for the replacement value of the Chrysler Town & Country van and the unique legal files contained therein;
- Treble damages in the amount of $42,000.00 for the unauthorized control and destruction of property pursuant to the Indiana Crime Victim’s Relief Act (IC 34-24-3-1);
- Compensatory damages in the amount of $2,000,000.00 for the injury to reputation and mental anguish caused by Defamation Per Se and Per Quod;
- Actual and nominal damages for the violation of Robbin Stewart’s rights under the Indiana Constitution (Art. 1, §§ 1, 11, 12, 16, and 21);
- Actual and nominal damages for Federal Constitutional violations pursued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983;
- Actual and nominal damages for the Elder Abuse Reporting violations resulting from the Defendants' breach of their mandatory statutory duty under IC 12-10-3;
- Reasonable attorney’s fees (estimated at $30,000.00) and all court costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and Indiana statutory law;
- Civil penalties against Defendant Wiley and the Town for the intentional failure to retain and produce public records under IC 5-14-3-9.5 as ordered by the Court;
- An Order of the Court, in lieu of or in addition to damages for spoliation, providing that the destroyed evidence (including the legal files and vehicle condition) be presumed to have contained facts favorable to Robbin Stewart’s claims and unfavorable to the Defendants; and
- All other relief the Court deems just and proper in the premises.
JURY DEMAND
Robbin Stewart hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
causes of action/claims in beech grove case.
do not file. for discussion purposes only.
1. due course of law. section 12. no opportunity for hearing. include section 1 claim as basis for damages. at least nominal damages.
nominals, $1, actuals $42,000. replacement value of town and country chrysler van and contents including legal files.
2. due process 14th A. $42,000 plus legal fees, court costs.
3. defamation. "You are obviously __ ____." $42,000.
false, actual malice required, limited privilege overcome if malice.
4. under the gershoffer/litchfield totality of the circumstances test, the seizure of the vehicle was a section 11 violation. nominal damages, costs and fees. actual damages of $1000.
these circumstances included:
valid investigatory stop. invalid seizure without opportunity for hearing. invalid retention of legal files. spoliation warning. not informed of auction location. possible collusive auction, why crush a good running van? how much did it sell for?
prepare a records request.
waste, bailment, brian's right of agency and representation.
3.5: seizure was a 4th amendment violation. nominals, actuals of 2,000. costs and fees. estimated fees: 30,000.
4. defamation by the town. close to a year later, the town refuses to retract the officer's false malicious claim. here actual malice consisted in reckless disregard for the truth. what do you call it when the boss is liable, except under 1983? latin phrase.
request for stipulations of fact and law.
4. taking, federal. 5th Amendment, 1983.
5. taking, state. self-actuating clause, damages for constitutional violation
6 taking, is it section 16 or what?
7 excessive fine, 8th A via 14th Timbs.
8. Excessive fine/disproportional remedy state constitution. at least nominal damages.
9 P or I clause. how? dunno. = protection also maybe?
10. conversion. 3x damages plus legal fees.
11 monel claims. failure to train and supervise. sue chief and vice chief
12 spoliation. as to the legal files in the van.
13. spoliation, as to the failure to retain and copy the requested records. $1 claim against city attorney.
14. waste. by crushing a perfectly good van, they committed waste. they had the van as a bailment. this was breach of fiduciary duty!
15. possible breach of contract. we requested the contract with hannah wrecker but it has not been produced.
16 statutory claim for failure to retain records. involve public access counselor.
17. civil and criminal violation of elder abuse reporting statute. ongoing violation in policy by the chief.
hey lawyer - i want you take a look and see if the duty to report elder abuse is limited to elder abuse that took place in beech grove. i suggest that it is not so limited, and the chief is screwing up in a way that exposes the town to liability, as here.
was it elder abuse for the officer to call me names and steal my car? i do not raise this claim in my suit, but the jury will get it as a lurking issue. was it elder abuse to leave me on the side of the road miles from my house, when they could see i had a cane?
16. more as they occur to me, this is enough to get me into court, and a complaint can be amended later to include more claims if needed or fun.
intro
juridiction
venue
parties
facts
claims
relief
stipulation of facts.
the actual facts are that stewart was the equitable owner of the van. the sticker on the plate indicated that he was the owner, but that sticker was for a different vehicle. that gave the officers reasonable suspicion for a stop, but does not authorize keeping the vehicle permanently.
the officer could have issued a ticket for the plate violation. he thought he was doing stewart a favor by not issuing a ticket. but that lack of a paper trail led to a due process violation when there was no opportunity for a hearing, a day in court.
the plate did not match the sticker, and indicated
stipulations of law.
causes of action/claims in beech grove case.
to vice chief via counsel
hiya chiefy.
thank you for meeting with me again. we were able to establish a few more facts for the record. the van was indeed destroyed. the wrecker company has some record of my visits there. the records i requested were not retained.
the chief stated that he felt we were at an impasse and no further relief would be offered. there has been no retraction of the defamatory claim. i clarified that i am billing $30 a day for the use of the van until this matter is resolved.
I will write separately regarding legal issues, but I wanted in this letter to just document that we had met and what we learned.
Dear Jim, or unknown staffer,
You sent me the form letter. I'll let that slide. You are new at this and we do not have a history of correspondence.
I am the Republican candidate for Marion County Clerk. When I write with a specific request for information pertaining to the Save act, I don't want the form letter.
Mrs. Stewart died three years ago.
Cordially, Robbin Stewart.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)