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. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  2. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  3. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

  4. If justice is not found in a court room, it's time to clean house!!! Even judges are accountable to a higher Judge!!!

  5. The small claims system, based on my recent and current usage of it, is not exactly a shining example of justice prevailing. The system appears slow and clunky and people involved seem uninterested in actually serving justice within a reasonable time frame. Any improvement in accountability and performance would gain a vote from me. Speaking of voting, what do the people know about judges and justice from the bench perspective. I think they have a tendency to "vote" for judges based on party affiliation or name coolness factor (like Stoner, for example!). I don't know what to do in my current situation other than grin and bear it, but my case is an example of things working neither smoothly, effectively nor expeditiously. After this experience I'd pay more to have the higher courts hear the case -- if I had the money. Oh the conundrum.

ADVERTISEMENT