Indiana State Senator's OWI charges delayed due to legislative immunity

State Sen. Mike Bohacek faces charges after allegedly stumbling out of his car after drinking alcohol inside his car at a Michigan City Panda Express in January, but the charges were only recently filed because of legislative immunity.
The Indiana Constitution states that legislators are 'privileged from arrest' during the legislative session except for treason, felony or breach of the peace. The 2025 legislative session started Jan. 8 and ended April 24, and Bohacek was arrested Jan. 24.
Bohacek, R-Michiana Shores, faces misdemeanor charges of operating while intoxicated and two additional misdemeanor OWI charges for a blood alcohol content above 0.15 and endangerment, according to the probable cause affidavit.
Porter County Prosecutor Gary Germann was appointed as the special prosecutor in the case. In an email Monday, Germann said the charges have not yet been approved by a judge, but that will likely occur in the next couple of days. He declined to comment further citing the pending litigation.
A witness told police officers that Bohacek drank from 'an open container' and stumbled out of his vehicle at Panda Express in Michigan City around 3:30 p.m. Jan. 24, according to the affidavit.
When officers arrived, they observed Bohacek with food on his clothes, poor balance and quiet, slow speech. Officers also reported that Bohacek had red, watery and bloodshot eyes and that he staggered from his black Dodge Charger, according to the affidavit.
A blood test performed at about 4:30 p.m. Jan. 24 found that Bohacek's blood alcohol content was 0.283, according to the affidavit.
Bohacek told police officers he took his prescription Tramadol before driving, according to the affidavit. Tramadol is a synthetic opioid used to treat moderate to moderately severe pain, including pain after surgery, according to the Mayo Clinic.
When reached by the Post-Tribune Tuesday, Bohacek expressed surprise that he could be charged months after the fact, but declined to comment further.
State Rep. Jim Lucas, R-Seymour, pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor counts of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated and leaving the scene of an accident in June 2023.
Former State Rep. Daniel Forestal, D-Indianapolis, faced charges before his resignation in 2020 for drunken driving. He had also faced charges for battery of a public safety official, resisting law enforcement and disorderly conduct and accusations of using his political campaign's bank account for personal use, like online gambling, in separate events beginning in 2019.
Forestal, who was open about his mental health struggles, died in 2021. Responding to a wellness check at an Indianapolis hotel, police found Forestal, 38, deceased.
akukulka@chicagotribune.com

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Chicago Tribune

an hour ago

• Chicago Tribune

Today in Chicago History: ‘The Sandberg Game' rocks Wrigley Field

Here's a look back at what happened in the Chicago area on June 23, according to the Tribune's archives. Is an important event missing from this date? Email us. Weather records (from the National Weather Service, Chicago) Chicago's history with hosting Democratic and Republican conventions dates back to 18601888: Frederick Douglass spoke at the Republican National Convention in Chicago's Auditorium Theatre. He received one vote from Kentucky in the fourth ballot — making him the first Black person nominated for president. 1895: A Chicago Colts game against Cleveland was interrupted after the third inning so the entire team could be arrested for violating laws banning baseball games on Sunday. While a West Side Grounds crowd of 10,000 fans waited, the players were marched into the clubhouse where they signed $100 bail bonds. They then returned to the field to finish a 13-4 victory. 1930: Future Chicago Cubs Hall of Famer Hack Wilson hit for the cycle against the Philadelphia Phillies. Vintage Chicago Tribune: Chicago Cubs who have hit for the cycle Wilson drove in a single-season record of 191 runs during the 1930 season, hit his 22nd home run of the year into right field in the first inning, then picked up a triple, double and two singles. 1960: Ground was broken on a 51-acre site in Elk Grove Village, which was just 5 miles away from O'Hare International Airport, for United Airlines' headquarters and training schools. United remained at the location until its offices were moved in 2009 to Willis Tower. In August 2022, CloudHQ began demolition of the former United Airlines corporate headquarters in Mount Prospect, with plans to build a $2.5 billion data center campus. 1975: Chicago City Council passed 'Burke's Law,' an ordinance proposed by former 14th Ward Ald. Edward Burke that outlawed nudity in massage parlors. The nickname was inspired by a popular television detective show from that time. Vintage Chicago Tribune: Pelé, Hamm, Beckham, Rapinoe, Messi and more. When soccer's big names came to play1976: The Chicago Sting beat the New York Cosmos, in front of 28,000 fans. It was soccer star Pelé's last match at Soldier Field. 1984: 'The Sandberg Game.' Cubs second baseman Ryne Sandberg hit a pair of late-inning, game-tying home runs off St. Louis Cardinals closer Bruce Sutter in the Cubs' 12-11, 11-inning win before a crowd of 38,079 at Wrigley Field. It signaled his rise to stardom — setting the second baseman on a course that would earn him the National League Most Valuable Player Award. The wild, comeback win gave notice to the rest of America that the 1984 Cubs were for real despite a 39-year World Series drought and not a single championship since 1908. That game ignited an unforgettable summer run that ended with a postseason collapse in San Diego, only one game shy of the World Series. What to know about the Chicago Bears' possible move to Arlington Heights — or a domed stadium on the lakefront2000: Churchill Downs Inc. bought Arlington Park for a reported $71 million. Arlington closed its gates on Sept. 25, 2021. The Bears finalized a deal to buy the site in February 2023. Subscribe to the free Vintage Chicago Tribune newsletter, join our Chicagoland history Facebook group, stay current with Today in Chicago History and follow us on Instagram for more from Chicago's past.

Yahoo

5 hours ago

• Yahoo

Women and men diverge more than ever on support for abortion rights, poll shows

Three years after the fall of Roe v Wade and months after an election that heavily focused on the fight over abortion rights, men and women have never diverged more on their support for access to the procedure, according to new polling from Gallup released Monday. Sixty-one percent of women now identify as 'pro-choice', but only 41% of men say the same, Gallup found. The same percentage of women identified as 'pro-choice' in 2022, just after the decision to overturn Roe was leaked, but at the time, 48% of men also did so. Prior to Roe's collapse, men and women were never more than 10 points apart from one another on the issue, according to decades of Gallup polling. Men and women are also in record disagreement over whether abortion is moral, as 57% of women and 40% men say that it is. Just 41% of men say that abortion should be legal in all or most circumstances, while 56% of women say the same. These gender gaps are likely less due to post-Roe changes in men's attitudes towards abortion than in changes in women's attitudes, said Lydia Saad, Gallup's director of US social research. Specifically: women have become a lot more supportive of abortion since Roe fell. In 2021, 52% of women and 45% of men identified as 'pro-choice'. 'In general, we see that with abortion, that the party that wants to change the status quo is the one that has more energy on the issue,' Saad said. 'For years, it was more the pro-life respondents who said that they will only support a candidate who shares their views on that issue. Whereas, since 2022, we've seen it flip.' Sudden political upsets do have the power to dramatically change people's beliefs, Saad said. Typically, however, those changes don't last and people revert to their norm views within a few years. Men's declining support for abortion may thus be a sign that they are reverting to their norm – but Saad was surprised women are still so energized by the issue. 'A line had been crossed for women,' Saad said. 'If you were generally supportive of abortion rights before, you became much more so.' Similarly, men who identify as Democrats have, like women, become much more likely to back abortion rights. Between 2020 and 2021, 63% of Democratic men said that they believed abortion should be legal in most circumstances; as of 2025, 78% of Democratic men say the same. Saad is not exactly sure why support for abortion rights is dwindling among men. Although this is the lowest level of support among men for the 'pro-choice' label in a decade, she is not convinced that this decline will continue. 'It's more just a out of sight, out of mind issue for men,' Saad said of abortion's legality. 'Whereas for women – it's just been more salient.' At this point, it's difficult to tell whether men are becoming more actively opposed to abortion or whether they are simply becoming more conservative overall, Saad said. Men are already more likely to be Republicans, and Republicans typically oppose abortion rights. A mere 19% of Republican men think abortion should be legal in most circumstances. Saad suspects Gallup's findings may be tied to shifts in the political views of young men, who proved to be surprisingly conservative in the 2024 election. Fifty-six percent of men between the ages of 18 and 29 voted for Donald Trump. 'We have to see where this goes,' Saad cautioned. 'If it's sustained, then we would really have to take a close look at why.'

The Hill

12 hours ago

• The Hill

Trump hits Iran: 5 questions on what comes next

President Trump's decision to authorize a military strike on Iran is a seismic moment that could reshape the future of the Middle East and his presidency. The administration on Sunday signaled it wants to contain the conflict, underscoring that it does not want an all-out war with Iran but will not accept a world where Tehran has a nuclear weapon. Whether it can contain the fallout is a different proposition and one that may depend largely on Iran. Politically, the vast majority of Republicans are sticking with Trump, while many Democrats are expressing outrage over what they see as a lack of strategy, as well as a lack of notification to Congress ahead of the strikes. The move by Trump is, in some ways, a surprise, as he came to office promising to keep the U.S. out of foreign conflicts. Now, less than six months into his second term, he is on the brink of a larger battle. Here are five big questions. This is the most important question. Administration officials on Sunday signaled that they are hopeful Iran will return to the negotiating table, but signs quickly emerged of a more aggressive response from Tehran. Iranian television reported that Iran's parliament had approved a measure to close the Strait of Hormuz, a key shipping route between Iran and Oman. State-run Press-TV said a final decision on doing so rested with Iran's Supreme National Security Council. Shutting off the waterway could have major implications for global trade, leading to increased oil and gas prices in the U.S. That would bite at Trump, who vowed to bring down prices after years of high inflation under former President Biden in the post-COVID era. It also risks turning the conflict into a broader war. Iran could also launch strikes against U.S. military targets, though its abilities to do so have been hampered by more than a week of strikes by Israel, which has allowed U.S. and Israeli planes more security to fly over Iranian skies. Another widely-discussed possibility is that Iran could back terror attacks around the world on U.S. targets. Of course, there would be serious risks to such actions by Iran. Just taking steps to move forward with its nuclear program, let alone striking out at the U.S., would lead to negative consequences, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned on Sunday. 'Look, at the end of the day, if Iran is committed to becoming a nuclear weapons power, I do think it puts the regime at risk,' he said during an appearance on Fox Sunday Futures. 'I really do. I think it would be the end of the regime if they tried to do that.' Before this week, Trump's Make America Great Again movement looked divided on a strike on Iran. Trump has long criticized past U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a big part of his draw to many voters was his promise to keep the U.S. out of foreign conflicts. MAGA voices from Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) to political pundit Tucker Carlson to former Trump strategic adviser Steve Bannon have all cast doubt on getting the U.S. more directly involved in the Iran-Israeli conflict. In the immediate aftermath of the strikes, Republicans were notably united, with Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) being a notable exception. And administration officials with non-interventionist records were taking rhetorical steps to keep the doubters in line. A chief example was Vice President Vance, who said the U.S. was at war with Iran's nuclear program, not Iran as a country. Iran may not see things that way, and if Tehran takes steps to hurt the U.S., GOP voices who doubted the wisdom of a strike may get louder. That will be something the administration watches closely going forward. Trump, in a Sunday Truth Social post, also touted 'great unity' among Republicans following the U.S. strikes and called on the party to focus on getting his tax and spending legislation to his desk. On the left, Democrats have hit Trump hard over the strike on Iran. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), speaking at a rally on Saturday night, reacted to unfolding events live, arguing Trump's action was unconstitutional as a crowd changed 'no more wars.' Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said Trump's action was an impeachable offense. That was a bold statement in that Democrats largely have avoided impeachment talk with Trump after twice voting to impeach him during his first term. Both of those efforts ultimately ended with Senate acquittals and, finally, with Trump's reelection last year. Presidents in both parties have taken limited military strikes without first seeking permission from Congress, but Democrats have also brought up the War Powers Act, saying Trump went too far with the strikes. At the same time, many Democrats are concerned about Iran's potential to go nuclear, and the party does not want to be cast as soft on Tehran. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a vociferous opponent of Iran, called for his GOP counterpart, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.), to put the War Powers Act on the floor so senators could vote to authorize Trump's actions. Going a step further, Schumer said he would vote for it. 'No president should be allowed to unilaterally march this nation into something as consequential as war with erratic threats and no strategy,' Schumer said in the statement. 'Confronting Iran's ruthless campaign of terror, nuclear ambitions, and regional aggression demands strength, resolve, and strategic clarity. The danger of wider, longer, and more devastating war has now dramatically increased.' 'We must enforce the War Powers Act, and I'm urging Leader Thune to put it on the Senate floor immediately. I am voting for it and implore all Senators on both sides of the aisle to vote for it,' he said. Another Democrat further to the center, Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, retweeted Trump's Truth Social post on the attack and said he fully agreed with it. In general, the strikes on Iran may further divide Democrats on liberal-centrist and generational lines. Yet much, again, depends on events. A successful Gulf War by former President George H.W. Bush did not save his presidency in 1992. And the second Gulf War ended disastrously for the Republican Party led by Bush's son, former President George W. Bush. Trump justly had a reputation as a president who is averse to foreign conflicts, given his criticism of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and his repeated calls that he would keep the U.S. out of such wars. So how did this Trump end up bombing Iran, becoming the first president to authorize the dropping of some of America's most lethal non-nuclear bombs? It's more likely Trump's shift is a bit of a one-off based on current world events than a complete change in philosophy. After Israel's initial strike on Iran on June 13, the administration distanced itself from the decision. Trump previously has been seeking to get Iran to agree to a nuclear deal, and many reports suggested he was not keen on an aggressive Israel attack. But that attack happened, and it went well. Israel had control of Iranian airspace, potentially clearing the way for U.S. B-2 bombers. Action by Russia was unlikely given its own war with Ukraine — something that was not part of the political fabric in Trump's first term. Iran's backers in Hamas and Hezbollah also have been devastated by Israel since Hamas launched its attack on Oct. 7, 2023, an event that has had a number of serious repercussions. Some U.S. officials on Sunday called for peace, a sign that Trump is not seeking a prolonged conflict. That could also be a message to his supporters who did not think they were voting for a leader who risked getting the country into a Middle East War. At least some of those voters may be asking questions in the days and weeks to come, and what comes next will make a big difference in shaping their views. Trump's decision to attack Iran and enter the Israeli-Iran war is a big win for hawkish supporters and allies of the president, most notably Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). It is also, oddly, something that will be cheered by certain Republicans who are more often critics of Trump, such as former National Security Adviser John Bolton and former Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). It seems clear Trump is listening to the voices of Graham, Rubio and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, despite the sometimes-tense relationship between the U.S. and Israeli leaders. Vance is clearly a part of the president's inner circle, and it was notable that he, Rubio and Hegseth were at Trump's side when he announced the strikes on Saturday night. Trump 2.0 has been notable for having few voices that offer pushback to Trump's decisions. It is difficult to see Hegseth pressing Trump to move in a different direction on a national security issue, for example. And Trump twice this week described assessments by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard that Iran was not close to developing a nuclear weapon as wrong. So, who has Trump's ear? Most of these key people surround Trump and others, like White House chief of staff Susie Wiles. But Trump is his own decider-in-chief, and the Iran strikes are a reflection of his own unpredictability.