Common nuisance in Indiana

[LdiJ]

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.

 

[quincy]

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.

Why? Because your definitive statement was challenged, or because you did not read the law I cited?

 

[LdiJ]

Why? Because your definitive statement was challenged, or because you did not read the law I cited?

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.

 

[quincy]

HOW can the law that is the subject of this thread not be relevant???

If you want to apologize, apologize for assuming facts not presented (and for not knowing the law).

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

I'll throw in a scenario based on the OPs post where he, the person living in the house and others involved could still be arrested and charged.

The police had previously made undercover buys at the house and had ongoing surveillance. The fact there were no drugs in the house at the time of the raid wouldn't really matter.

 

[quincy]

All Maxine said was, "they are not selling from the house anymore and just not selling at all anymore."

Even if there were no longer drugs in the house, Maxine did not say anything about what else criminal the occupants of this "common nuisance" house might be up to in the house or elsewhere.

A known drug dealer generally cannot be cleaned up as easily as a house.

 

[justalayman]

I really hope somebody is successful in challenging this law someday as it takes looseness to an entirely new level


No, there needs to be sbsolutely no drugs found in the house.. Thwt is not a requirement to consider the property a common nuisance. If you notice it states a house that was used to unlawfully used drugs. Thwt means almost any building or car where anybody smoked even a single joint can be considerd a public nuisance.

So, if the prosecutor can support the claim the House was used even once, op is guilty of visiting a common nuisance.

 

[justalayman]

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.

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.

The fact is, there is no requirement the police ever enter a house determined to be a common nuisance. If the police see a person walking from such a building they can arrest the person and file charges all while never stepping foot on the property


It really is a bs law the state uses to prosecute suspected drug users when they can’t catch them red handed. It also allows for the cops to search the suspect (after arrest of course) with the hope contraband will be discovered on them.

 

[quincy]

The law does seem overly broad, doesn't it?

 

[justalayman]

The law does seem overly broad, doesn't it?

Oh ya. It resllly needs to go away.

 

[quincy]

Oh ya. It resllly needs to go away.

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).

Here is a link to a 2003 Indiana Court of Appeals case (Hale v. State), the decision of which shows how little that amendment helped to clarify the law. The decision in my opinion is a bit of a mess.
https://law.justia.com/cases/indiana/court-of-appeals/2003/03270301-jts.html