Felony drug prosecution may lose some muscle

The number of major drug cases prosecuted in Vanderburgh County next year could fall because of money problems detailed publicly on Monday.

After the first day of 2009 budget hearings, the president of the county's fiscal body said Prosecutor Stan Levco probably won't get the $258,923 he is seeking to absorb the loss of a federal drug-fighting grant.

What should Vanderburgh County do about the potential loss of a drug prosecutor?

See the results »

View previous polls »

The Edward Byrne Memorial State Justice Assistance Grant now pays for the only three full-time felony drug prosecutors in Levco's office, plus a secretary to support them. This year, the county kicked in $132,308 as a local match.

But federal spending on the grants was slashed by hundreds of millions of dollars nationwide, meaning Levco now needs the county to pick up the entire $258,923 tab if his drug prosecution unit is to continue at full strength in 2009.

The county's financial obligation would be even greater by virtue of the fact that its previous $132,000 grant match included no obligation to pay health insurance, but those costs would have to be added to the almost $259,000 outlay if the county funded the team.

"I doubt we will handle (felony drug cases) as well (without the money), but we'll do the best we can," Levco said after Monday's budget hearing.

Determined not to increase this year's $62 million county budget in the face of exploding fuel costs and legislatively mandated property tax caps, County Council President Marsha Abell said Levco probably is out of luck.

"I think this County Council will be committed to just the same amount that they've committed to last year," she said. "(Levco) is going to have to see if he can find the funding somewhere else, or maybe tell us which one of the employees he can't do without, because other than that, we're going to have to hold the line."

Council Finance Chairman James Raben agreed, saying it is "highly unlikely" the prosecutor's office will get more than the $132,000 match for the positions that it got this year. Prosecutors say they understand the council's budget crunch, but they want council members to know prosecution of drug cases in Vanderburgh County likely will suffer if they get the same $132,000 they got this year.

Levco said it is likely the county would lose at least one of the felony drug prosecutors, although he acknowledged it is conceivable the loss could come elsewhere.

Dan Miller, director of the prosecutor's Drug Law Enforcement Program, told County Council members the 750 to 900 felony drug cases the team files annually represent one-third of all felony criminal cases in Vanderburgh County.

"Our drug prosecutors are not just 8 (a.m.) to 4:30 (p.m.) prosecutors," Miller said. "They work around the clock. We are available to all law enforcement agencies in Vanderburgh County 24 hours a day, seven days a week to assist in search warrants and answering questions that come in about drug crimes and search and seizure issues."

Miller gave a glimpse of his office's distress at the loss of the federal grant when council members asked him about other sources of money.

"I have my eyes out there looking for other grants. ... So far I've not found anything that we qualify for," he said.

The County Council will meet at 9 a.m. today in Room 301 of the Civic Center for a second day of budget hearings. Council members will begin making cuts in the budget in meetings the week of Aug. 26. On Sept. 10, they are scheduled to pass a formal 2009 budget.

Monday's hearing wasn't all bad news. A few department heads announced they found areas where their budget requests could be cut. But Abell knows it will take many more such slices to get $67 million in budget requests down to the County Council's $62 million no-growth target.

"We are not going to let off staff, and we are not going to increase taxes," she vowed. "We're just going to get lean and mean. We may be tearing up paper and using it for scratch paper, but we will make it happen."


  • Discuss
  • Print

Comments » 29

kathykat45 writes:

They could turn over all that canopy money.....

jones43 writes:

Rest of story not printed:

Prosecutor Levco wasn't even at the meeting to present his issue about funding these positions. If it is really significant, why wasn't he present?

Several times, 'discretionary funds' came up. What is the balance of the 'discretionary funds' for Prosecutor's office?

I get tired of hearing about how tight budgets are, but some depts have 'discretionary funds' or 'prepetuary fees', etc.

All the money needs to be included in the discussion. Council should ask and dept heads should state the balance of all the extra funds not on budget.

Likely that is where the excess 5 million in cuts can be found.

scrooge writes:

Maybe it's time we stop spending billions of dollars to lock up people who are smoking marijuana. I have grown up, and no longer smoke pot but I did smoke it for several years. I also drank alcohol, and I can guarantee you that marijuana is far less dangerous. This is a FREE COUNTRY so let the dopers live. Is it right that in Posey County, meth cookers get more prison time than murders? I think our government needs to re-evaluate how they spend our tax dollars and set some logical priorities.

lightsoutbrandtii writes:

Dan Miller and the team of prosecutors that work with him are fantastic. They work hard and for a good cause. It is too bad the council is sending the message that other things are more important than keeping drugs off the streets (like, for instance, canopy destruction). Thanks Dan and your team for the work you do - it does not go unappreciated!

lmathew#7168 writes:


Sounds like a plan, but are you going to include alcohol, prescription meds and caffeine?

rooney33147 writes:

Why is it that the County Council can turn over $180,000 to the METS system (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2008...) but can't find the money to give to our local government and police force?!!

Less cops on the roads because of budget cuts and higher fuel costs, and less criminals being prosecuted because of budget cuts, but you better believe the people who ride our buses can get to where they need to go!! Unbelievable!

This outrages me! Time for a new county council in my humble opinion.

TerribleLie writes:

Everyone mentioning pot needs to realize that when they say "felony drug prosecution" it doesn't include pot. To me, what that means is that they prosecute meth, crack, heroine, prescriptions, etc. less but keep the pressure on pot. After all, pot is just a misdemeanor.

I may be wrong but it sounds like they are moving in exactly the opposite direction you (and I) would like. I guess it makes sense. Easier to prosecute and convict a person for pot possession than to go after a meth lab. It's also a bigger net positive to their coffers. Meth labs cost money to bust and we all know that money comes before public safety.

sgtpepper61#4736 writes:

Another ploy to soak the taxpayers again. After the BO smackdown you won't have any money left. Welfare for everyone!

meghane1006#107221 writes:

DemonJeanie - thank you for mentioning the difference between felony and misdemeanor, I was hoping someone would bring that up.

In response to the other comments, I don't think the council is trying to send any "message" about whether or not felony drug prosecution is important. They have made cuts to every department in county government and the prosecutor's office is part of that. All departments are going to have to learn how to make due with less unfortunately.

While I agree that marijuana is as harmful (if not less) than alcohol, legalizing it is a slippery slope. Once marijuana is legal, then next people will be calling for other drugs to be legal and so on and so on. After all, marijuana is a "gate-way" drug. You find a bunch of meth or coke heads in Evansville and ask them which drug they tried first and the majority are going to answer "weed".

Warden writes:

The drug war is a farce and always has been. Prosecutions are haphazard and absolutely unequal - the little guy is prosecuted to the 'fullest extent of the law' while the big wigs skate. It's only made a thriving industry where there would only be drugged out losers and made good citizens pay the cost in higher crimes and taxes.
I don't do drugs of any kind and never have, but I can see the damage the "WAR" has done to our society.

soccerdaddy2003 writes:

What about claiming all the money you get from the dealers and their cars and all that kind of stuff.

Wouldn't some of that help offset the cost?

Warden writes:

Maybe that's their 'discretionary fund.'

lmathew#7168 writes:

The constitution protects ALL of us. If we deny that protection to one group, which group is next?

TerribleLie writes:

"You find a bunch of meth or coke heads in Evansville and ask them which drug they tried first and the majority are going to answer `weed`."

True only because they won't consider beer a drug.

I'm for the decriminalization of all drugs but not because I think they are good for society. Rather, I think incarcerating addicts serves no one. Forced rehab is the only way to go. A meth addict behind bars is nothing more than someone counting the days to get out in order to do more meth.

irishfan writes:

Demonjeanie, possession under a certain amount IS a misdemeanor. However, possession of marijuana over that amount or if the suspect has a prior conviction for possession of marijuana is a felony.

TerribleLie writes:


You might find the freedom you are looking for in North Korea, China or Cuba.

TerribleLie writes:


I am going off the assumption that anyone in possession of that amount is probably correctly labeled and prosecuted as a distributor. I should have been more precise.

LauraLS writes:

rendezvouswithyou--you left out one important thing--they should give up any chance that they will reproduce.

johnh writes:

The first step is for bill be passed into law that gives any Non-Violent offender an option of having an ankle bracelet put on his/her leg instead of going to Jail.

The offender pays for that, and also pays whatever he /she earns for 1 hour each day when they are working. That pays for monitoring he offenders whereabouts 24/7. The offender is basically sentenced to house arrest instead of to jail. The Judge can specify where the offender can go, and when. Such as, he can go to work, and go home. Go to the Dr. at a specific location, go to Church, etc. If the offender deviates from what he is allowed to do, and when. The monitoring agency INSTANTLY notifies the police department by puter, and that is followed immediately by fone calls that tracks the offender anywhere he/she goes.

1.The city makes a profit off non-violent criminals.
2. They can work and support themselves and their familiies.
3. We don't have to feed them, pay for guards to watcg them in jail, etc.

What is our obsession with paying for any offender to stay in jail when we don't have to?

Our profits could be used to cover the cost of felony convictions of "Drug Dealers", or whatever. Does it work. Yes it does.

To answer an unasked question. If a offender does not have a job, can he participate? Of course he/she is assigned to do public service work at mininmum wage.


StevenBHorse writes:

"the war on drugs is a farce"


The same can be applied to our other failed wars

Education (no child left behind)

StevenBHorse writes:

I forgot the war against Freedom.

Sadly, they are winning that one.

tiny writes:

Why don't you just tell the dope pushers we don't have the money to prosecute them. Oh, you just did. Now everybody even considering a life of drug trafficing will give it a shot. Did this really have to be made public? Do you think your going to get public funding when our taxes and gas already take soo much of our money

Warden writes:

Hey! Drudge reported that Pelosi is now "considering" off-shore oil drilling!

Food and air are addictions too k_rosey. But, I'm not giving up mine.

johnh: Saw that proposed once somewhere. It is a fantastic idea. WHY lock up non-violent people? Let them work and support themselves. (I would assume they will be tested periodically for drugs?)

meghane1006#107221 writes:

Have you ever seen the show "Intervention"? Catching a few episodes of that makes me understand exactly why heroine, meth and cocaine are illegal (amongst many other things, like abuse of prescription drugs). True, there are alcoholics, but if you want to compare the number of alcoholics vs. alcohol drinkers and coke users vs. coke addicts, the ratios will be strikingly different.
I agree with your idea behind forced rehab - but who is going to pay for that? If you are expecting the addict to pay for that, you might have to wait a while. All socioeconomic classes use illegal drugs, but what happens to the individuals who can't afford treatment? We can't just let them go. So, the burden will fall back on the tax-payers and I would venture a guess to say that rehabilitation services will be much more expensive than incarceration.

WeR77 writes:

Update: ISP says further investigation revealed the driver of the vehicle in the I-64 crash was under the influence of marijuana and amphetamine at the time of the crash.


blackbear#27350 writes:

Put the drugies in a large holding pen with 12 foot wire with razor wire on top put up tents give them 5gal buckets and some old books to use till they get money to try them!!!!

jason15663 (Inactive) writes:

I say good. It sounds like a cry for some public support for more funding....not from me. I think the government is getting too big anyways. Liberties are slowly going away and people are glad to let them go for the name of "safe".

I don't do any of them but I dont see the harm with a guy getting high in his basement. Everyone is quick to thrash on that guy but are ok with a guy going out after work and drinking with his buddies.....I guess I will never understand the double standard. I don't hear many cases about a guy who was high and killed someone while driving....or beating his family because he had to much to smoke....
People are weird about things...so easy for the government to market them.

TerribleLie writes:


I've seen the show and I hear where you're coming from. I don't think people ever truly recover from addiction until they've been properly treated. For that reason I think treatment might very well be cheaper than incarceration, especially if it is a lifetime of one jail sentence after another. Also, I think we as a society owe it to ourselves to help each other. If we're already paying an ungodly amount of money to lock someone up why not spend just a little more to try and actually help them? An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure ... hopefully.

In the end though the fatal flaw to my idea and others is that addicts of hard drugs (or any drug for that matter) will not benefit from treatment unless they want to change. If there's one thing Intervention and sarge on these boards have taught me it's that truth. I would like to point out though in reference to the show that many of those people would be convicted felons in prison if they were speaking to a police officer rather than a doctor. Do you really think those people would be better served behind bars with no treatment over the treatment facility they are sent to?

It really is a lose lose situation. We as a society just need to figure out how to lose the least.

mary#9425 writes:

Funding the prosecution of dealers and getting drugs off the streets is a better long term fiscal decision than not. More drugs = more crime of all types. And that will result in lower rankings of Evansville in those surveys that say we're a good place to raise kids.

We have an office that works. If the council blows this one to save some funds now, it will cost us all more big time, long term.
