Aubrey Thompson v. State of Indiana - 3/25/14

Back to TopPrintE-mail
Tuesday  March 25, 2014 
1:00 PM  EST

1 p.m. 49A02-1307-CR-606. Terre Haute South High School. Aubrey Thompson appeals her conviction for Class B misdemeanor public intoxication.  On November 18, 2012, officers with the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department were dispatched to the residence of Thompson’s friends Denise Robinson to investigate an altercation between Robinson and her boyfriend.  Thompson was present when the officers arrived on the scene, and the officers observed her to be intoxicated.  As the officers questioned Robinson and her boyfriend about the alleged altercation, Thompson interrupted several times.  Each time, the officers asked Thompson to step away.  Eventually, Thompson retrieved her purse and advised that she intended to drive away.  Fearing that Thompson was putting herself and others on the roadway in danger, the officers arrested Thompson for public intoxication.  Thompson claims there is insufficient evidence that she endangered herself or others.

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. 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.

  2. 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!!!

  3. 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!

  4. 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.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT