Christopher Tiplick v. State of Indiana
2015 Ind. LEXIS 852
| Ind. | 2015Background
- Tiplick was charged in Indiana Supreme Court for possessing, selling, and dealing in XLR11 and related look-alike substances.
- The charging information lacked reference to Emergency Rule 12-493(E) which criminalized XLR11.
- Pharmacy Board had issued an Emergency Rule in 2012 declaring XLR11 a synthetic drug; Rule took effect Sept. 15, 2012.
- Defendant challenged vagueness of the synthetic-drug statute (Sections 321 and 4.1) and the look-alike statutes, and asserted improper delegation to the Pharmacy Board.
- Trial court denied motions; appellate panel reversed on the synthetic-drug charges; Supreme Court granted transfer.
- Court held XLR11-related charges must be dismissed due to failure to reference the Emergency Rule, while Look-Alike and non-XLR11 charges could proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sections 321 and 4.1 are unconstitutionally vague | Tiplick argues vagueness and arbitrary enforcement risk | Tiplick contends statutes are vague and overbroad | Not unconstitutionally vague |
| Whether Look-Alike Statutes are unconstitutionally vague | Tiplick claims undefined terms and potential endless enforcement | Statutes include scienter and objective factors adequately guide by statute | Not unconstitutionally vague |
| Whether the distribution of legislative power to the Pharmacy Board is improper | Delegation to Board to declare substances criminal via rule violates constitutional separation of powers | Delegation is permissible with sufficient standards and guidance; Board acts to determine facts upon which law operates | Not impermissible delegation; valid with safeguards |
| Whether the XLR11-related counts must be dismissed for failure to reference the Emergency Rule | Information insufficient without citing rule; notice deficient | Combination of information and probable-cause affidavit provides notice; fairness | Counts VII–XV and XVII–XVIII dismissed for failure to reference Emergency Rule |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. State, 868 N.E.2d 464 (Ind. 2007) (vagueness when notice of prohibited conduct is unclear)
- Healthscript, Inc. v. State, 770 N.E.2d 810 (Ind. 2002) (delegation and vagueness considerations in administrative regulation)
- Jennings v. State, 262 Ind. 443, 317 N.E.2d 446 (Ind. 1974) (requirement to reference board rules in charging information)
- Touby v. United States, 500 U.S. 160 (U.S. 1991) (intelligible principle test for delegated criminal-schedule authority)
- City of Carmel v. Martin Marietta Materials, Inc., 883 N.E.2d 781 (Ind. 2008) (delegation to agencies to determine facts necessary to apply law; valid with standards)
- Ensign v. State, 250 Ind. 119, 235 N.E.2d 162 (Ind. 1968) (limits on delegation where criminal responsibility is defined by agency rules)