ILNews

Attorney wanted on drug charges arrested

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A northern Indiana attorney wanted in Noble County on various drug charges was arrested late Wednesday, according to the Noble County Sheriff’s Department.

Jon A. Criss, 43, faces charges of Class D felonies possession of methamphetamine and maintaining a common nuisance, and Class A misdemeanors possession of marijuana and possession of a synthetic drug. The charges stem from items allegedly recovered during the execution of a search warrant of Criss’ home on July 17, according to a release from the sheriff’s department.  

When the charges were filed by Noble County Prosecutor Steven Clouse Wednesday afternoon, Criss’ whereabouts were not known, but a tip led to his arrest later in the day. The sheriff’s department release says he was arrested without incident at his home.

Criss' initial hearing was held Wednesday, in which the judge set his bond at $75,000, Clouse said. During the hearing, the state submitted evidence that Criss turned in his own obituary to the Kendallville News Sun this week. Clouse said the state argued that one who falsifies his own obituary is intending to fleat and not be caught.

Criss intends to represent himself, and his pretrial conference and omnibus date are set for September 18.

Criss was admitted to practice in 1994. According to the roll of attorneys, he was suspended in June; the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission filed a petition July 24 against Criss for failure to cooperate with the disciplinary process.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT