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. 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