The state's highest court has agreed to hear a case in which the Indiana Court of Appeals split on whether a police "knock
and talk" investigation violated a man's constitutional rights.
The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer today to Kenneth Brown v. State of Indiana, No. 11S04-0911-CR-537,
in which Kenneth Brown's various drug convictions were upheld by the Court of Appeals. Judges Carr Darden and Margret
Robb ruled the knock and talk procedure didn't violate Brown's rights under the state or federal constitutions. Neither
probable cause nor reasonable suspicion is constitutionally prerequisite for a knock and talk investigation, and suspicion
based on an anonymous tip is proper basis for officers to make inquiries of occupants.
Four police officers went to Brown's house in the early morning to talk to him after receiving a tip that a person they
had arrested got drugs from Brown. The officers knocked on his front door and when Brown answered, explained the earlier arrest
and asked to search his home. Brown allowed only one officer to enter; that officer found drugs.
Judge Paul Mathias dissented, holding that the investigation and search violated Brown's rights under the state constitution.
The judge noted the police said they were taking a "crap shot" to get into Brown's house because they didn't
have anything to go on. That doesn't amount to a reasonable degree of concern, suspicion, or knowledge that criminal activity
has occurred under Litchfield v. State, 824 N.E.2d 356, 359 (Ind. 2005).
The degree of intrusion in this case was very high, with four officers and three police cars showing up at the home in the
middle of the night. Judge Mathias didn't believe a reasonable person, roused from sleep and faced with these intimidating
circumstances, would feel free to refuse the officers' request to search.














The court of appeals not only tries to rewrite or interpret the law to suit their fancy, now they choose play stupid as well. Every consideration must be given to pro se litigants, who are not held to the same standards as attorneys, as stated by,SCOTUS. I assume they didn't have a lawyer, since one wasn't mentioned and I strongly suggest thatb the rest of the, origional petitioners get back in there and fight for their rights.
the irony of situations like this is that the clients whom conour cheated are the ones who should be pulling hardest for him to remain free and keep his law license, so they have some hopes of him paying back. really bury the guy deep and then there will be little hope of restitution
Qualified immunity, means that if you wear a badge, you are exempt from law and free to do anything you please! The courts will back badge toting individuals, because they think they are above the law as well. They think, they have judicial immunity, they do not.
Deeply, deeply concerned? I'll bet if it was the judge's money that had been swindled we'd see deep concern with actual consequences. First a Ponzi scheme, then a shell game with the assets…c'mon, hasn't Conour abused the judicial system and his clients long enough? I say enough already.
Wow, just wow.