Common nuisance in Indiana

[Maxine2017]

In indiana if there is a house that is a known drug house and you know that. You go and clean the house top to bottom and there is no drugs whatsoever. But it was used to sell weed and stuff. If the cops raid it and find nothing weed related in the home can you still go to jail for visiting a common nuisance?

 

[quincy]

In indiana if there is a house that is a known drug house and you know that. You go and clean the house top to bottom and there is no drugs whatsoever. But it was used to sell weed and stuff. If the cops raid it and find nothing weed related in the home can you still go to jail for visiting a common nuisance?

In cleaning the house top to bottom, were you also cleaning the house of weed and stuff?

 

[Maxine2017]

Yes

 

[quincy]

Yes

Then, yes. You could be charged - not only with visiting a common nuisance but with possession.

Here is a link to the common nuisance law:
https://www.in.gov/meth/files/IC_35-48-4-13_Visiting_or_Maintaining_a_Common_Nuisance.pdf

 

[Maxine2017]

But what if there is no drugs in the house and they are not selling from the house and just not selling at all anymore?

 

[LdiJ]

But what if there is no drugs in the house and they are not selling from the house and just not selling at all anymore?

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.

 

[Maxine2017]

So if the person that used to sell stuff still living there and they raid it and find nothing then nobody will get into trouble

 

[quincy]

Technically, according to the law, if the place has been used one or more times to manufacture, keep, offer for sale, sell, deliver or finance drugs, it is a common nuisance. If you knowingly and intentionally visit this common nuisance, you could be charged.

That is technically. Realistically, if there are no drugs or paraphernalia, a charge might not be supportable.

 

[LdiJ]

So if the person that used to sell stuff still living there and they raid it and find nothing then nobody will get into trouble

Correct...there has to be evidence. The person who sold the weed might get into trouble if there is other evidence that they sold weed, but other people connected with the house are not going to get in any trouble.

 

[quincy]

Correct...there has to be evidence. The person who sold the weed might get into trouble if there is other evidence that they sold weed, but other people connected with the house are not going to get in any trouble.

Well ... there are not enough facts to say definitively that no one will get into trouble. Something would spur a raid by the police.

 

[LdiJ]

Well ... there are not enough facts to say definitively that no one will get into trouble. Something would spur a raid by the police.

Sure, something could spur a raid, but the raid would have to produce evidence. If the house has been totally cleaned, then the raid is obviously not going to produce evidence.

 

[quincy]

Perhaps no evidence of drugs. Why are you saying that no one will get into trouble?

 

[LdiJ]

Perhaps no evidence of drugs. Why are you saying that no one will get into trouble?

Why are you saying that someone could? Both the law and due process requires that there has to be evidence of a crime for someone to be arrested.

I already said that the person who possibly sold the weed could be arrested if there is other evidence (other than what resulted from the raid) but even you, at your worst, cannot claim that someone would get in trouble when no evidence exists of a crime.

 

[quincy]

They might not be charged with using, keeping or manufacturing drugs at the house.

Could they still be offering drugs or selling drugs or financing drugs?

Could they be charged with another crime?

There are NOT enough facts presented for you to say "other people connected with the house are not going to get into trouble."