Indiana Supreme Court upholds arrest, felony charges in 'spice' case
Decision strengthens Indiana's ability to control dangerous synthetic drugs, Marion County prosecutor says.
The Indiana Supreme Court's decision to uphold the 2012 arrest and felony charging of a retail store owner accused of selling synthetic drugs has strengthened Indiana's ability to control dangerous and constantly evolving synthetic drugs such as “spice” and “bath salts,” Marion County Prosecutor Terry Curry said Thursday.
Christopher Tiplick, who owned three Smoke Shop locations in Indianapolis, was arrested in October 2012 after detectives made undercover purchases of synthetic drugs at his stores, according to court documents. Tiplick, 23, was charged with 18 felonies, including several counts of dealing in a look-alike substance and conspiracy to commit dealing in a look-alike substance.
Tiplick had asked a Marion Superior Court judge to dismiss 11 of the charges, saying a regular member of the public cannot be expected to know what substance is and is not illegal, considering the complexity of the statute. The judge denied that request.
In January 2015, two of three judges on an Indiana Court of Appeals panel agreed with Tiplick, saying that state law criminalizing the dealing in and possession of synthetic drugs is too vague for the average citizen to understand and, therefore, is unconstitutional.
On Thursday, Curry announced the Indiana Supreme Court had overturned that decision and upheld the look-alike statute and the emergency rule-making of the Indiana Board of Pharmacy. Although the Supreme Court held that the synthetic drug charges were defective by failing to reference the specific Board of Pharmacy rule, the court further stated that such a technical defect could be corrected by a motion to amend the pending charges, which will be done in the trial court.
“As we stated when these charges were filed, a significant challenge in prosecuting those who deal in synthetic drugs is that the chemical composition of these dangerous substances is constantly evolving in order to avoid the current statutory definition,” Curry said in a statement. “As a consequence, we had filed these charges by taking an aggressive interpretation of existing criminal statutes, and the Supreme Court decision has vindicated our position.”
Call Star reporter Michael Anthony Adams at (317) 444-6123. Follow him on Twitter: @MichaelAdams317.