ILNews

Store owner’s ‘Spice law’ prosecution may proceed, COA rules

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The state may press criminal charges under the state’s synthetic drug law against a Hamilton County defendant who unsuccessfully argued to the Indiana Court of Appeals that the law was vague and represents an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority to the Board of Pharmacy.

In 2011, the Legislature outlawed possession of synthetic cannabinoids commonly known as Spice or K2, and in 2012 it expanded the list to include synthetic drugs including AM-2201. The statute is I.C. 35-31.5-2-321, and the law took effect March 15, 2012.

Between March 21 and 26, 2012, undercover detectives from the Hamilton/Boone County Drug Task force made multiple purchases of substances containing AM-2201 from Love Jeet Kaur and Kamal Jit Singh, the owners of a Valero gas station in Noblesville. In May 2011, Kaur was charged with Class D felony dealing in a synthetic cannabinoid, Class D felony possession of a synthetic cannabinoid, and Class D felony maintaining a common nuisance.

Kaur moved to dismiss the charges, which the trial court denied and Court of Appeals on Monday affirmed in Love Jeet Kaur v. State of Indiana, 29A05-1208-CR-424.
 
“Because we conclude that the charging information and probable cause affidavit were sufficient to place Kaur on notice, the Synthetic Drug Law is not vague as applied to Kaur, and the Synthetic Drug Law does not represent an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power as applied to Kaur, we affirm the trial court’s denial of Kaur’s motion to dismiss,” Judge Cale Bradford wrote for the panel.



 

 

 

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. 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