Indiana Judge Pleads Guilty to Drunk Driving: Will He be Disciplined — or Give Him a Slap on the Wrist?

Honorable Judge Buckley, graduate of Valparaiso University and Valparaiso School of Law 2009

VALPARAISO, Ind. — When an ordinary Hoosier appears before a judge after being arrested for drunk driving, the defendant is expected to answer for his conduct.

Now an Indiana judge is on the other side of that equation.

Perhaps the most memorable moment of Buckley's arrest came not in the courtroom, but along the Michigan City lakefront.

According to the police report, Buckley repeatedly expressed concern that the encounter was going to ruin his career or his life. His 2024 Lincoln Navigator apparently left little doubt that its driver was involved in judicial politics: police reported seeing the words “Keep BUCKLEY JUDGE” prominently displayed across the vehicle's doors.

After an officer informed Buckley that he was under arrest for operating while intoxicated, Buckley made a statement that may follow this case long after his probation ends:

“I’m a Judge, you just ruined my career.”

The officer's response, as described in the police report, was remarkably simple: the officer reminded Buckley that he had done that himself. 

YES, IT IS MUCH WORSE WHEN A LAWYER'S LEGAL CAREER IS RUINED BY AN ORDER FROM LORETTA RUSH THAT IS FULL OF LIES.

Porter Superior Court Judge Christopher A. Buckley pleaded guilty to operating while intoxicated following his Aug. 15 arrest in Michigan City. According to charging documents, testing showed a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.221%, approaching three times Indiana's legal limit of 0.08%.

Buckley subsequently pleaded guilty to a Class C misdemeanor OWI charge and received 180 days of probation, along with treatment monitored through the Indiana Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program. WHAT A JOKE. NO REAL PUNISHMENT. HE IS STILL A LAWYER WHEN MANY SOBER, LAW ABIDING LAWYERS HAVE BEEN ATTACKED AND SUSPENDED WITHOUT REISTATEMENT. HOW DOES THIS CRAP KEEP HAPPENING?

ONE COMMENT: LORETTA RUSH. SHE MUST GO.

He has accepted responsibility publicly, acknowledged struggling with alcohol and temporarily suspended his reelection campaign. But Buckley's criminal case isn't necessarily the end of the matter.

For a sitting Indiana judge, another institution gets a say: the Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications and, ultimately, the Indiana Supreme Court

.

The question now is whether Buckley will face meaningful judicial discipline — or another punishment critics will characterize as little more than a slap on the wrist.

A Judge Says Judges Should Be Held to a Higher Standard

Buckley deserves credit for one thing that cannot be overlooked: he didn't publicly blame the police officer, prosecutor, political opponents or anyone else.

He accepted responsibility

.

“I was/am a full-time judicial officer, and I feel strongly that officers of the court should be held to a higher standard of conduct than an ordinary citizen,” Buckley said following his guilty plea. Why are courts run by drunken idiots?

Buckley also said he had struggled with alcohol since serving in the Marine Corps more than two decades ago and expressed gratitude that the episode created an opportunity to obtain help.

According to reporting following his arrest, Buckley also self-reported the incident to the Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications.

Those actions could become significant mitigating factors if disciplinary proceedings follow. Indiana Supreme Court decisions involving other judges convicted of OWI have specifically considered cooperation, remorse, self-reporting and participation in treatment.

But Buckley's situation contains aggravating circumstances that could make this case different.

This Isn't Buckley's First OWI Case

Online court records indicate Buckley was previously charged with misdemeanor operating while intoxicated in Hobart City Court in 2009 and was found guilty.

The latest incident therefore isn't occurring against a completely clean background.

There is another disciplinary issue.

In 2021, the Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications publicly admonished Buckley for conduct while he was judge of Lowell Town Court. That case did not involve alcohol. The Commission concluded that Buckley's handling of bond matters violated Indiana's Code of Judicial Conduct.

Buckley cooperated and acknowledged the violation.

Five years later, he is once again facing questions about judicial conduct — this time following his own criminal conviction.

Indiana Has Reprimanded Judges for OWI Before

There is precedent for Indiana's highest court treating a judge's drunk-driving conviction as judicial misconduct.

In 2007, Marion Superior Court Judge John F. Hanley faced discipline after driving with a blood-alcohol concentration of .15. The Indiana Supreme Court concluded the conduct violated judicial standards requiring judges to obey the law and behave in ways promoting public confidence in the judiciary.

The punishment?

A public reprimand. (Bid whoopie!)

Senior Judge William Garrard, a former Indiana Court of Appeals judge, was convicted of operating while intoxicated endangering a person. In 2016, the Indiana Supreme Court again approved a public reprimand.

Senior Judge T. Edward Page was arrested and convicted of OWI and received the same basic judicial sanction in 2017: public reprimand. Page's immediate self-reporting,

cooperation, remorse and compliance with JLAP were cited as mitigating considerations.

Those cases demonstrate why asking what will happen to Buckley isn't merely rhetorical.

Indiana has a documented history of resolving some judicial OWI cases with reprimands.

But there is another precedent that deserves considerably more attention.

One Indiana Judge Was Required to Leave the Bench

In 2014, the Indiana Supreme Court considered the case of Clarksville Town Court Judge Mickey K. Weber.

Weber pleaded guilty to operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol and criminal mischief after an incident involving an automobile accident and property damage. The Supreme Court specifically noted previous legal problems associated with alcohol.

The result went far beyond a reprimand.

The Indiana Supreme Court reprimanded Weber and required his resignation from judicial office. It further prohibited him from future judicial service until he successfully completed an approved treatment plan and a two-year monitoring agreement.

That precedent raises the uncomfortable question confronting Indiana's judicial establishment today: Which category does Christopher Buckley belong in?

The Supreme Court Has Considerable Power

The Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications investigates allegations of misconduct against Indiana judges. The Commission can issue certain admonitions or, in more serious circumstances, bring formal disciplinary charges.

But ultimately the Indiana Supreme Court possesses the authority to impose formal judicial discipline.

And its options extend well beyond writing a strongly worded letter.

Under Indiana's judicial disciplinary rules, possible sanctions include a private or public reprimand, censure, a fine, restrictions on judicial duties, suspension, attorney discipline and, in sufficiently serious circumstances, removal from office.

That means the Supreme Court has the institutional authority to determine whether Buckley's behavior is compatible with continued judicial service.

The Commission and Court should also consider an obvious problem of public confidence.

Buckley isn't simply an attorney who received an OWI.

He is a sitting trial judge.

People accused of crimes appear before him. Lawyers stand in his courtroom and ask him to enforce Indiana law. Defendants are expected to obey his orders.

Some of those defendants inevitably face alcohol-related offenses themselves.

A 0.221% BAC Is Difficult to Ignore

The reported number deserves attention.

Buckley's blood-alcohol concentration was 0.221%.

Police alleged that he exhibited slurred and slowed speech, glassy and watery eyes, unsteady balance and difficulty performing field-sobriety tests. Charging documents also state that he initially refused a chemical test before testing was subsequently conducted at Northwest Health-LaPorte.

Buckley ultimately accepted responsibility and pleaded guilty quickly.

Those are facts pointing in different directions when discipline is considered.

His acceptance of responsibility matters.

So does the conduct for which he accepted responsibility.

The question shouldn't be whether alcoholism or another substance-use disorder deserves compassion and treatment. It does. Nor should seeking treatment become something used against a person who recognizes that he needs help.

The separate question is whether someone can simultaneously receive treatment and continue exercising the extraordinary authority Indiana gives its judges.

Politics Complicates Everything

Buckley is also a Republican candidate seeking another term on the Porter Superior Court bench.

His Democratic opponent is Heather McCarthy.

After the arrest and guilty plea, Buckley announced that he was temporarily suspending campaign activities. Suspending a campaign, however, isn't necessarily the same thing as withdrawing from the election.

Porter County Democratic Chairman Don Craft has called upon Buckley to resign from the bench and abandon his reelection effort.

That criticism obviously comes from the opposing political party during an election year and should be identified as such.

But the underlying judicial-ethics question exists independently of partisan politics.

Even if Buckley weren't running for reelection, the Indiana judiciary would still have to confront what conduct it expects from someone presently entrusted with judicial power.

Equal Justice Includes Judges

Indiana's judicial disciplinary system regularly emphasizes maintaining public confidence in the courts.

This is an opportunity to demonstrate what that principle means in practice.

Buckley has admitted wrongdoing. He pleaded guilty. He says he needs help. His willingness to seek treatment should be encouraged rather than mocked or minimized.

But accountability and treatment aren't mutually exclusive.

Indiana's Supreme Court has previously reprimanded judges convicted of drunk driving. It has also required at least one judge with previous alcohol-related legal problems to resign and undergo treatment before becoming eligible for judicial service again.

Buckley's circumstances therefore present a legitimate test.

Does a reported 0.221% BAC, a prior OWI history and a previous unrelated judicial admonition warrant something more than another reprimand?

Or will Indiana's judicial disciplinary machinery conclude that probation, treatment and a public reprimand are sufficient?

The Commission should investigate the matter according to its established procedures, and Buckley is entitled to those procedures just as anyone else is.

But Hoosiers are equally entitled to watch what happens next.

Because the credibility of judicial discipline isn't measured primarily by what Indiana's courts demand from lawyers, defendants and ordinary citizens.

Sometimes it is measured by what the judiciary is willing to demand from one of its own and th this isn't very much! We have fools in charge of the legal system.