Tanoos v. State
| Decision Date | 06 December 2019 |
| Docket Number | Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-CR-1086 |
| Parties | Daniel TANOOS, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Attorneys for Appellant: James H. Voyles, Jr., Jennifer M. Lukemeyer, Tyler D. Helmond, Indianapolis, Indiana
Attorneys for Appellee: F. Aaron Negangard, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Stephen R. Creason, Chief Counsel of Appeals, Indianapolis, Indiana
[1] Former Superintendent of the Vigo County School Corporation (VCSC) Daniel Tanoos was charged with three counts of bribery regarding his solicitation and acceptance of meals, tickets, and other items from a vendor that repeatedly contracted with and provided energy solutions to VCSC. The trial court denied Tanoos's motion to dismiss the charges, and Tanoos appeals, asserting that the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to dismiss the charges because the facts alleged do not constitute the offense of bribery.
[2] We affirm.
[3] Tanoos began as Superintendent with VCSC in 1999 or 2000 and retired in 2018. Energy Systems Group (ESG) is a state-certified guaranteed energy savings contractor (GESC) headquartered in Indiana and with offices in Indianapolis, that develops and provides energy solutions to governmental bodies to reduce energy and operating costs under Ind. Code Chapter 36-1-12.5.1 ESG provides clients with such things as upgraded lighting and HVAC at no added cost to the client, as energy savings are used to pay for the investment over a period of years. At times relevant to this action, Doug Tischbein was the corporate director of ESG, and he was in charge of the VCSC account beginning in either 2006 or as early as 2003. Between 2000 and 2016, VCSC entered into nine contracts with ESG worth more than $42 million.
[4] On September 24, 2018, Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department Detective Tara Asher, who was assigned to the Marion County Prosecutor's Grand Jury Unit, filed a 24-page probable cause affidavit (the PCA) averring that, in August 2018, she received information from FBI Special Agent Joann Dowell that the FBI had been investigating Tanoos based on information that the FBI had received from Indiana's State Board of Accounts (SBOA) regarding concerns of improper awarding of contracts by VCSC to ESG. Based on the information that the FBI received from the SBOA, the FBI opened a public corruption investigation in February 2016. FBI agents executed search warrants at several VCSC locations, collecting digital and documentary evidence related to ESG's relationship with VCSC, and in particular, Tanoos's relationship with ESG and Tischbein. The FBI investigation included information received from an FBI confidential source with access to VCSC contracts and the contracting process. The investigation also included interviews with various VCSC personnel, school board members, and ESG personnel, including Tischbein. ESG expense reports and emails were provided pursuant to subpoena.
[5] Persons interviewed indicated that Tanoos always recommended ESG to the school board as the GESC for renovations throughout the district and that other competitors quit responding to published Request for Qualifications. The PCA reflected that Tanoos continued to receive tickets and meals and the like at times when ESG did not have a contract with VCSC, with Tischbein explaining to his superiors that there were upcoming planned VCSC school renovations, that Tanoos "is loyal to us" and "a certain level of investment into maintaining that relationship is vital." Appellant's Appendix Vol. II at 29. Both Tanoos and Tischbein denied in interviews that Tanoos solicited or expected Tischbein to buy things in exchange for Tanoos's recommendation of ESG to the school board.
[6] According to ESG records obtained in the investigation, Tischbein expensed more than $18,000 between the years of 2006 and 2016 for meals, events, and miscellaneous items, and that amount did not include company-owned season tickets to sporting events or items paid personally by Tischbein. In the same time period, ESG made more than $83,000 in donations related to the VCSC account. Detective Asher summarized in the PCA, "Evidence obtained through the investigation showed that Tischbein and ESG routinely provided benefits and perks to Tanoos and VCSC school board members in an effort to continue receiving work from VCSC" and, "[o]ver time, Tanoos began soliciting such perks of his own accord, sometimes pairing the request with information about ESG competitors or while otherwise offering support to ESG." Id. at 20.
[7] Detective Asher found the following instances "of greatest concern":
[8] On September 24, 2018, the State filed an information against Tanoos alleging three counts of bribery, Count I as a Class C felony and Counts II and III as Level 5 felonies:
[9] On October 22, 2018, Tanoos filed a motion to dismiss, seeking dismissal of all three charges on several grounds, the following of which is relevant to this appeal: The facts stated in the charging information do not constitute the offense of bribery because "Indiana does not recognize a ‘generalized bribe’ theory ... and the State is required to prove the existence of an explicit quid pro quo", and here, the charging information's allegation that Tanoos would recommend to VCSC to award a contract or continue business with ESG was too general and, thus, insufficient.2 He maintained that the State was required to show "that any of these solicitations, acceptances, or agreements to accept food/beverages/tickets were [ ] made on a quid pro quo basis, i.e., in exchange for Tanoos'[s] agreement or promise to recommend ESG for any particular project." Id. at 60.
[10] The Indiana Association of Public School Superintendents (The Association) requested and received permission to file an amicus curiae brief in support of Tanoos. The Association stated that it was not suggesting that school vendors' "extensions of goodwill and thanks in the form of meals, events, and tickets" should be allowed to cloud the judgment of school leaders, but it is "necessary and unavoidable for superintendents to interact with past, current, and future business associates," and the charges against Tanoos "have created uncertainty as to how the Indiana bribery statute can and will be enforced in the future." Id. at 87. The Association explained:
Under the State's reading of the Indiana bribery statute, prosecutors could allege violations of the statute when superintendents and other public officials accept anything, at any time, from any person or business that has, is, or may do business with the public official. Public officials around the state would have no guidance as to where the line is drawn and legitimate and essential business and public-relation relationships would be chilled. School systems, municipalities and other public programs would suffer. Businesses could reconsider investments in Indiana. And it is not difficult to imagine the unfair and selective prosecution of public officials that could result if the State's current application of the statute is permitted.
Id. at 87-88. The Association urged that the State's application of the bribery statute "to the facts alleged here" violates federal and state due process and encourages arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. Id. at 89.
[11] The State's response to Tanoos's motion to dismiss argued, as is relevant to this appeal, that, first, for purposes of a motion to dismiss, the trial court must take the facts in the information and PCA as true and, second, the State is not required to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. State
...not required to include detailed factual allegations in the charging instrument, though it may choose to do so." Tanoos v. State , 137 N.E.3d 1008, 1015 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. denied. Further, "[s]ince the charging information and probable-cause affidavit are filed together, they shou......
-
Jarboe v. State
...U.S. Const. amend. VI ; Ind. Const. art. 1, § 13. The purpose of a charging information is to provide that notice. Tanoos v. State , 137 N.E.3d 1008, 1015 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (noting a charging information must "provide a defendant with notice of the crime of which he is charged so that he......