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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT