State of Indiana v. Gregory Lagrone - 12/17/12

Back to TopPrintE-mail
Monday  December 17, 2012 
1:30 PM  EST

1:30 p.m. 49A05-1203-CR-135. Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Officers received an open parcel containing marijuana from a private parcel delivery company. The officers repackaged the marijuana with a GPS tracking device and parcel wire, affixed the original label addressed to “Michael Davis,” and then conducted a controlled delivery to the address on the shipping label, a hotel. Gregory Lagrone retrieved the parcel from the hotel, and surveillance officers followed him by car to his home. A short time later, the parcel wire activated a monitor with surveillance officers, indicating that the parcel had been opened. The officers then knocked and announced themselves. When no one answered, they entered the home without a warrant due to the risk of destruction of the marijuana. In the subsequent prosecution of Lagrone, the trial court granted his motion to suppress evidence obtained from the warrantless entry of the home. The state appeals. We ordered oral argument to ask the parties to address, in part, the relevance to this case of United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 (2012), regarding the constitutionality of attaching a warrantless GPS tracking device to a person’s effects.

Back to Events
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. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

  2. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  3. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  4. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  5. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

ADVERTISEMENT