LdiJ
Senior Member
I do not care. Hopefully the OP will see it before the admin decides to remove it, assuming that the admin decides to remove it. I am beyond disappointed with you on this thread.Your post was reported, LdiJ.
I do not care. Hopefully the OP will see it before the admin decides to remove it, assuming that the admin decides to remove it. I am beyond disappointed with you on this thread.Your post was reported, LdiJ.
Why? Because your definitive statement was challenged, or because you did not read the law I cited?I do not care. Hopefully the OP will see it before the admin decides to remove it, assuming that the admin decides to remove it. I am beyond disappointed with you on this thread.
Because you cited a law that you are smart enough to know isn't relevant...and then acted like a baby when I apologized to the OP for getting him/her involved in the dispute.Why? Because your definitive statement was challenged, or because you did not read the law I cited?
Totally incorrect. The crime is visiting a common nuisance and as long as the state has classsified the house as a common nuisance, any person visiting the house is guilty of the crime.If the police raid a house and there is nothing illegal in the house, then nobody connected with the house is going to get in any trouble. It doesn't matter what is "known" evidence is still needed to arrest someone.
Oh ya. It resllly needs to go away.The law does seem overly broad, doesn't it?
Indiana had actually amended the law, effective in 2001. It added the "1 or more times" to the text of part (b) - but did not add it to part (a).Oh ya. It resllly needs to go away.