The Indiana Court of Appeals recently ruled against Attorney General Todd Rokita in his attempt to enforce civil investigative demands (CIDs) issued to Berry Global Group, Inc. and the Haitian Center of Evansville. This decision, made on July 27, 2026, affects how the Attorney General can conduct investigations related to human trafficking and other serious offenses. The court found that the CIDs were issued without sufficient evidence of wrongdoing, raising questions about the authority of the Attorney General.
The case, identified as docket number 25A-MI-02817, began when Rokita issued CIDs to both Berry Global and the Haitian Center, seeking information related to an investigation into human labor trafficking and indecent nuisances. However, the CIDs did not specify any particular suspect, victim, or incident. Both organizations declined to comply with the demands, leading the Attorney General to file petitions to enforce them. The trial court denied these petitions, prompting Rokita's appeal.
In the court's opinion, Judge Vaidik stated, "For an investigation to exist, there must be a factual predicate—an articulable reason to suspect that particular wrongdoing may be afoot. A mere hunch will not suffice." The court emphasized that the Attorney General failed to demonstrate that he was conducting a legitimate investigation. Without specific allegations or evidence, the court ruled that the CIDs issued were unauthorized and unenforceable.
The dispute arose from the Attorney General's concern about the increase in migrant populations in Indiana and their vulnerability to human trafficking. The CIDs sought extensive information from Berry Global, a manufacturing company, and the Haitian Center, a nonprofit organization. However, the court found that the Attorney General's petitions lacked the necessary details to justify the demands.
The court's ruling affirmed the trial court's decision, stating that the Attorney General did not establish reasonable cause to believe that the recipients had relevant information. The judges noted that the Attorney General's approach could lead to potential violations of constitutional rights, including freedom of speech and protection against unreasonable searches.
This ruling has significant implications for future investigations conducted by the Attorney General's office. It reinforces the requirement that there must be a clear basis for issuing CIDs, preventing the use of such demands as a tool for fishing expeditions without concrete evidence. The court's decision may serve as a precedent for similar cases, ensuring that the rights of individuals and organizations are protected against arbitrary government actions.
Looking ahead, the Attorney General has the option to appeal the decision to the Indiana Supreme Court. However, details regarding any potential appeal or related cases were not available in the court filing. The ruling highlights the importance of balancing the need for investigations with the protection of civil liberties, particularly in sensitive areas such as human trafficking.