This is an archived article and the information in the article may be outdated. Please look at the time stamp on the story to see when it was last updated.

INDIANAPOLIS, Ind. – Marion County Prosecutor Terry Curry has asked a judge to dismiss Attorney General Curtis Hill’s motion to stop the appointment of a special prosecutor.

In a sharply worded court filing, Curry said Hill was “plainly wrong” in his contention that the inspector general didn’t have the authority to build a case against him. Hill is accused of groping four women at a bar in March. Several lawmakers have called for his resignation.

Curry called for the appointment of a special prosecutor last week, saying his office had a conflict of interest because of pending litigation in which the Attorney General’s Office is representing the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office.

Curry said that conflict of interest led to the need for a special prosecutor. Hill’s attorney filed a motion to stop the appointment of a special prosecutor, saying the move was unnecessary and that the Inspector General’s Office lacked the authority and jurisdiction to conduct an investigation.

Curry’s filing said state law gives the inspector general “the authority to investigate any misconduct” and “requires the inspector general to notify the prosecutor when evidence of any criminal activity is discovered.”

The filing said the inspector general was required to notify the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office “once they were advised of the allegations of misconduct against Hill.”

Curry’s filing also hit back at Hill’s criticism that he was not provided details of the information provided to the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office. State law “does not require the State to disclose specific information or details of the investigation in the request for a special prosecutor,” the filing contended.

The filing said it was “obvious” that the inspector general had the authority to investigate Hill and added that the attorney general’s motion had “two additional fatal flaws”:

“First, the State would suggest that a person merely suspected of a crime has no standing whatsoever to challenge the appointment of a special prosecutor or the authority of an investigatory agency. Second, Hill cites no authority that would permit a court to essentially enjoin that investigatory agency from conducting a criminal investigation.”

The filing asked the court to “summarily deny the relief sought” by Hill.