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. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT