Before the chronological overview of my two decades of defending people accused of crimes in Indiana, let's fast-forward to the day the Indiana Supreme Court published vague, unfounded accusations against me and implied that my legal argument lacked merit without offering an alternative or saying what was wrong with mine. The Supreme Court then proceeded to suspend my license to practice law, saying it would remain suspended until realize the "wrongfulness of my acts".I was sure I hadn't done anything that even bordered on wrongful things the Supreme Court imagined I had done, I filed my Motion to Clarify Order. And here's the supporting brief: Memorandum of Law
My legal argument is simple. There is no exception in Indiana's drug prohibition for law enforcement officers, yet there is general agreement that police officers and their helpers don't break the law when they purchase illegal drugs for use as evidence in court proceedings. This either means that the police are above the law or else purchasing drugs for use as evidence in court proceedings is permissible in Indiana.