[The Brazil Times nameplate] Fair ~ 55°F  
High: 67°F ~ Low: 50°F
Friday, Apr. 29, 2016

Man convicted on drug charges from 2005 case

Wednesday, December 17, 2008

Kenneth J. Brown
A Coalmont man involved in a 2005 drug arrest was convicted of all charges in Clay Circuit Court.

On Wednesday, Kenneth J. Brown, 46, was found guilty on all four counts he was charged with in 2005, including class B felony dealing in narcotic drug (methamphetamine), class C felony possession of a controlled substance within a 1,000 feet of a public park, class A misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia and class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana.

Clay County Prosecutor Lee Reberger explained the state had to pursue the original charges filed against Brown at the trial, although statutes in Indiana have separated methamphetamine charges from other types of narcotics charges.

On July 8, 2005, the Clay County Sheriff's Department was notified of information about an alleged drug dealer located at a Coalmont residence from an earlier drug arrest by the Linton Police Department.

When deputies arrived at 6548 West Coulson Street, Coalmont, for a "stop and knock," Brown, who had the right to refuse, gave officers consent to search his home.

Defense attorney James Organ unsuccessfully attempted to argue the validity of the officers' use of the controversial search before Circuit Court Judge Joseph Trout before trial proceedings began Monday.

Surrounded with surveillance equipment outside and using police scanners inside, officers noted that Brown's residence was located within 1,000 feet of the Coalmont public park.

Once inside the home, officers allegedly discovered prescription drugs, marijuana, methamphetamine and three types of scales. Various types of paraphernalia and miscellaneous items used to ingest or introduce marijuana and/or methamphetamine into the body, including several that contained drug residues, were also discovered.

According to courtroom officials, Brown testified on his own behalf during the three-day court proceedings that, due to the disarray in his unkempt home, he was unaware of the items the officers discovered.

He said someone else must have left them in his home.

However, Reberger produced a string of witnesses from multiple law enforcement agencies involved in the investigation and 19 pieces of evidence, including a chemist from the Indiana State Police Lab, to testify in the state's case.

"This conviction of all four counts is a product of the investigation, which crossed county lines and involved several law enforcement agencies," Reberger said shortly after the jury's unanimous decision on the guilty verdict. "Because of the cooperation and quality of work the officers, especially those of the Clay County Sheriff's and the Linton Police departments, did during the investigation allowed the state to be able to get this conviction."

With the foul weather making travel difficult Wednesday morning, Reberger also wanted to praise the jury, who all arrived on time.

"The jury's efforts in this case need praised," he said. "They went above and beyond their duties during this trial. They were attentive and dedicated to serving justice in this case."

After entering a judgment of conviction, Trout listened to arguments as to whether Brown would be allowed to return to his "out on bond" status or remanded to custody without bond while awaiting the Jan. 12, 2009 sentencing hearing.

Per the prosecutor's request, Trout remanded Brown into the custody of the Clay County Justice Center.

Reberger said the state has not developed a sentencing recommendation at this time for Brown, and is opting to wait for the Adult Probation Department's report.

The potential penalty Brown faces at the sentencing hearing for the class B felony conviction is 6-20 years with the Indiana Department of Correction.

According to Trout, Indiana law requires that the remainder of the Brown's sentences on the other counts would be required to run concurrent with the sentence he receives on the primary charge.

Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please Login or Create an account first, and then you will be able to flag a comment as objectionable. Please also note that those who post comments on thebraziltimes.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

I hope that he actualy committed a crime! If he did , May god help him to become a better person. After all, he is old enough to know better.

-- Posted by rooster1 on Thu, Dec 18, 2008, at 12:23 PM

SO how exactly do they convict someone of dealing a drug because some other people who got pulled over say they bought it there. Remember who you are dealing with another meth head.I can understand a possession of meht charge but I guess maybe I don't understand the dealing part. How do you know that they didn't make other stops? I can understand the cameras because there are alot of thugs in Coalmont. As far as the prescription drugs, I'm sorry but I myself was unaware that if you have prescription drugs that presumably aren't yours that you can get a felony charge. UInless there is more to this story I think it is Very absurd to waste county money trying these people on pills. I no that there has to be something done but a felony for pills when you have unsolved murders in this county that require attention? It's ashame that apparently he even allow these thigs around, but something sounds funny to me. If I was dealing drugs or had anything in my house that wasn't supposed to be there I sure would not have let them search it, so that makes me think that he had nothing to hide.

-- Posted by ape1 on Thu, Dec 18, 2008, at 2:03 PM

ape you must read as well as an ape because obviously you did not read this whole article. He was convicted because CCSD searched his home and they found drugs including meth and marijuana. He was probably charged with dealing because of the significant ammount of drugs, and the fact he was in possession of THREE types of SCALES; drug users do not use scales. If you are in possession of a prescription drug NOT in it's origional container with YOUR name on it then yes, it is illegal. Maybe you should brush up a little bit on Indiana laws before you make yourself look like any more of an idiot on this website.

-- Posted by Pro Se on Thu, Dec 18, 2008, at 2:36 PM

How about the surveillance equipment and the police scanners surrounding the house? That sure sets off some bells to me as far as this man was doing something he don't want to get caught doing.

Sounds like he had better security than some businesses in the area!

I also pray this man finds a way to become a lawfully productive citizen. Our community needs more of them than we have right now!

-- Posted by Cy on Thu, Dec 18, 2008, at 3:45 PM

Pro Se,

Maybe you should take a grammar and spelling lessons before you make yourself look illiterate to everyone who reads this. Does the article say how much he had? NO! And that could mean he had empty bags with residue. Does not mean he had large quantities. I'm sure that if he had large amounts it would be blasted all over this article. And yes, drug users do use scales too, you don't think that they are completely dumb do you? When I was a teenager I knew lots of teenagers who done pot and I seen them weigh their dope on scales. Happens that some of those teens are now some of your "finest". I'd much rather have someone who is smoking marijuana in their own house than have all these drunk drivers on the road. IT is dumb to waste money that could be spent on other stuff to be having trials over marijuana or pills.I understand getting the meth off of the streets and I'm all for that but from reading the article, it's not convincing to me that he was dealing. Sorry! From all of your comments you post on here I'm sure some of your good friends are in law enforcement, but they are not always law abiding people either, like I mentioned earlier, some of those teens I knew are now your "finest." The only difference is that they didn't get caught. You should be ashamed of yourself for all the nasty judgement that you cast on others. I guess maybe you should invite everyone over to your glass house since everyon else's has cracks.

-- Posted by ape1 on Thu, Dec 18, 2008, at 3:55 PM


The cameras I agree are a little much, but who knows if they even worked, doesn't say. Maybe he was a victims of thugs stealing. I'm not saying that he was not doing things he should not have been, because it's obvious something was going on, but I'm not not convinced he was dealing, but I wasn't the one on the jury that heard everything either. From the old article when this happened you had 2 meth heads who got pulled over saying they bought it at his house. Unless the was other evidence presented, is it not odd to call another county to report a possible drug dealer, because 2 meth heads told you? My question would be how do you know that they didn't stop elsewhere? Linton is a little way from Coalmont and it is possible. If they all lived the same lifestyle it'd be easy to pin it on someone you knew who done drugs to get the heat off of themselves.Who do you believe? None of them!! Like I said, I believe something went on but I have a hard time believing the story that he was dealing, unless he had a certain amount,money, or things bagged up-which there's no mention of it here. Apparently, he has not been too bad, or least hasn't gotten caught, because I don't see his name in the paper. This happend 3 years ago and apparently, maybe he did learn something already, there's no mention of him getting in anymore trouble.

-- Posted by ape1 on Thu, Dec 18, 2008, at 4:12 PM

Is it really necessary to print such hideous looking people? The general opinion of Brazil is going down the tubes from seeing such messed-up looking people in the newspaper. It is a total joke...that there are so many horrendous characters in the same town. Re-evaluate, please.

-- Posted by softcloth on Thu, Dec 18, 2008, at 10:00 PM

Pro Se you have done a great job.

A voluntary search is not covered under illegal searches and seizures. (4th Amendment. US Constitution) Why? Because it's voluntary! Once you submit yourself to a search you are in return saying: I give up my 4th Amendment rights. It has to be completely voluntary without coercion. What these police officers did was completely legal and responding to a citizen complaint. The citizen complaint in this case probably occurred during a traffic stop or who knows.

As far as references on dealing and possessing here is a link for you to check the laws out on that:


-- Posted by Criminology08 on Fri, Dec 19, 2008, at 12:20 AM

Pro Se..

actually drug users do use scales. i think you need to brush up on stuff to. Idiot

-- Posted by nhs_babe_2011 on Fri, Dec 19, 2008, at 10:23 AM

"..and I seen them weigh their dope on scales."

That's something I would brag about too. (Rolls eyes)

-- Posted by Pro Se on Fri, Dec 19, 2008, at 3:32 PM

Pro Se..

actually drug users do use scales. i think you need to brush up on stuff to. Idiot

-- Posted by nhs_babe_2011 on Fri, Dec 19, 2008, at 10:23 AM

Wow you seem to know a lot miss nhs_babe for not having graduated high school yet..

-- Posted by Pro Se on Fri, Dec 19, 2008, at 3:35 PM


As much as people hate the truth, a portion of our community isn't "pretty" for various reasons. The devastation of drugs and poverty claim both children and adults alike.

Have you stopped to look around at all the lost faces in this town? We, as a community, are in trouble and we need help, the kind that starts from within.

Yes, this man's picture is tragic to look at. I didn't want to look at these types of pictures at first either, because it broke my heart. But since the paper started printing pictures of these poor souls, it has motivated me, and several others I know, to try and reach out to help through volunteering in various outreach programs.

It seems you're motivated to complain that a part of our sleepy community has problems. Every community has problems, but only WE can help fix OUR problems.

I'm tired of people doing nothing but complaining or, even worse, ignoring the problems our neighbors (YES, they are our neighbors) are enduring.

Go ahead and join all the others who blame the government, blame the cops, blame local businesses, and blame everyone else for the problems that are happening. God forbid we would blame ourselves for not stepping up to the plate and helping ourselves, or our neighbors.

-- Posted by Cy on Fri, Dec 19, 2008, at 6:04 PM

Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: