ILNews

Bill restricting social media access for sex offenders passes Senate

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Senate Bill 347, introduced to rectify issues brought up by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals when it struck down an existing law regulating social media use by registered sex offenders, passed the Senate Monday by a vote of 49-0.

The bill prohibits sex offenders, as a condition of probation, parole or participation in a community transition program, from using social media to contact someone less than 16 years old, with possible exceptions for minor relatives. The bill is in response to the recent Circuit Court ruling that found Indiana’s existing law regulating sex offender use of social media to be unconstitutional because it’s too broad.

Also moving this week:

House Bill 1411, creating a court staff attorney pilot program, passed second reading;

HB 1053, which includes a requirement that the Department of Correction remove from the sex offender registry information relating to a sex or violent offender who is dead or no longer required to register, passed in the House 91-0 Tuesday;  

HB 1061, dealing with the appointment of magistrates in Marion Superior Court and Warrick Circuit and Superior Courts, was moved to the full House by the Ways and Means Committee;

HB 1393, creating a Judicial Technology Oversight Committee and establishing the amount of automated record keeping fee a clerk can collect, passed the Ways and Means committee;

HB 1394, which makes various changes to provisions concerning corporations, partnerships, limited partnerships, nonprofit corporations and limited liability companies, was approved by Judiciary Committee; and

HB 1519, which adds agricultural products and livestock to the items for which a person, who in good faith donates to a charitable entity, is not liable for civil damages unless the damages are result of the person’s intentional, knowing and reckless misconduct, also moved out of the Judiciary Committee.

On Wednesday morning, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hear six bills: SB 555, Indiana firearms reciprocity license; SB 280, defense of legislative lawsuits; SB 383, state university use of eminent domain; SB 202, petitions to modify custody and visitation (amend and vote only); SB 460, foreign law; and SB 171, grandparent and great-grandparent visitation (amend and vote only).


 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Looney Law Makers
    When it comes to sex offenders and social media, the Indiana law makers seem to be in a funk. What do they do? Write these laws on scrap paper, put them in a can and draw one out? Then vote by a coin toss of each member of the house or senate. Tails Yes: Heads No:

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT