Key points
• Attorney General Todd Rokita filed a civil investigative demand (CID) with the Haitian Center of Evansville.
• The AG's office has sent CIDs to other nonprofits and to Berry Global, a Fortune 500 company based in Evansville.
• An attorney for the Haitian Center described Rokita's CID as an overreach, a fishing expedition.
• Circuit Court Judge Ryan Hatfiled seemed skeptical, noting that he would "like to hear some basis for the reasonable cause."
• Hatfield's ruling could come as soon as Monday.
EVANSVILLE — A Vanderburgh County judge's skeptical questions cut through lawyerly arguments Friday to ask the Indiana Attorney General's Office a question it wouldn't, or couldn't, answer.
What, Circuit Judge Ryan Hatfield asked in so many words, is the AG's Office's "reasonable cause" to believe that the Haitian Center of Evansville knows something about human labor trafficking and the places where it happens?
In legalese, Attorney General Todd Rokita's office had filed a civil investigative demand (CID) stating it "has reasonable cause to believe that (the Haitian Center) may be in possession, custody, or control of documentary materials or may have knowledge of facts that are relevant to an investigation being conducted concerning human labor trafficking and indecent nuisances."
More: Showdown on immigration looming between AG, Berry Global and Evansville nonprofits
Hatfield didn’t rule Friday on the Haitian Center’s motion to quash the CID, which was the subject of the hearing.
Rokita's office has sent similar CIDs to at least seven other nonprofits, local government agencies and companies in Indiana, including Berry Global Group and Evansville-based God Is Good Foundation.
Before Hatfield's questions came Friday, the Attorney General's representative, Jefferson Garn, argued that “reasonable cause” isn’t the relevant issue at this stage.
The Haitian Center lacks legal standing in trial rules or Indiana code to file a motion to quash the CID, Garn asserted.
"The CID itself is not self-executing," he said. "It’s not — it doesn’t enforce itself. It doesn’t come with a judge’s approval or anything. It’s just coming from the Attorney General's Office."
If the attorney general needed to enforce the CID, Garn argued, that would be the time to talk about affidavits and specific evidence. The only thing the law requires of the Attorney General’s Office at this stage, he argued, is that it give a general description of what its investigation is about.
“There’s no pre-enforcement challenge mechanism under Indiana law,” Garn said.
But Pat Shoulders, the Haitian Center’s attorney, told Hatfield that Rokita’s CID is overreach, demanding in 21 sweeping interrogatories and 12 document requests that the Haitian Center “produce any and all documents concerning migrant services provided or made available.”
And for what? Shoulders asked. He called the CID a fishing expedition.
“You will not find one statement, an affidavit — any statement of fact whatsoever that there is reason to believe that the Haitian Center has a fact relevant to this psuedo-immigration enforcement action,” Shoulders said.
Hatfield began to bore in on the attorney general's lawyer.
“Can the attorney general use a CID to determine if reasonable cause exists, or must reasonable cause exist in order to issue the CID?” the judge asked Garn.
There does need to be a reasonable basis for a CID, Garn replied, but “the time to analyze that, the time to look at that, would be in the enforcement action.”
Hatfield tried again, noting state law’s stipulation that an attorney general may issue a CID for reasonable cause.
“What I’m asking you is, is that reasonable cause required before the CID is issued, or is the attorney general allowed to use the CID to determine reasonable cause?” the judge asked.
Garn hesitated, reiterating that reasonable cause and investigation are necessary.
“The reason I’m hesitating is because, the way the investigation might work is, that CID could play a part in — the level of reasonable cause is quite low, so I just think that the CID could be used to help build up the investigation,” Garn replied.
“So there’s like a building process.”
Acknowledging the AG’s argument that the Haitian Center lacks legal standing to quash the CID, Hatfield brushed it aside to pose a penetrating question.
“Is the Attorney General’s Office prepared to argue on the reasonable cause basis today?” he asked Garn.
“You’ve given nothing to this court today," Hatfield said. "If your argument is (lack of standing) and you’re not willing to argue the reasonable cause, I’ll accept that as your position — but I would like to hear some basis for the reasonable cause given that you seem to indicate that there needed to be reasonable cause prior to the CID being issued.”
Garn reiterated that now is not the proper time under law to address investigatory details.
“I’m not prepared to testify about the Attorney General’s Office’s investigation,” he said.
Shoulders, the Haitian Center’s lawyer, got in one last point.
How is it possible, the veteran attorney asked, that an organization that receives legal papers from a government official compelling it to take action wouldn't have standing to come to court?
Hatfield said he would take the Haitian Center’s motion to quash the Attorney General’s CID under advisement and issue an order on it soon.
Gelina Mascoe, the Haitian Center's director, said after Friday's hearing that she had been confused by the thicket of arguments and wasn't prepared to comment — but Shoulders had noted during the hearing that Hatfield seemed to understand the issues at play. He and his partner, attorney Buddy Lobermann, were seen smiling outside the courtroom as they talked to Mascoe's party.
Hatfield's ruling could come as early as Monday.
© 2025 courierpress.com, All rights reserved.