ILNews

Bills heading to governor’s desk

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

As the legislative session heads toward its March 14 close, several bills have passed both houses and are on their way to Gov. Mike Pence for his signature.

Senate Bill 3 was approved Tuesday in the House of Representatives 91-4. The legislation makes battery a Level 6 felony instead of a Class B misdemeanor if the offense is committed against certain judicial officers while they are engaged in official duties. Battery becomes a Level 5 felony instead of a Class B misdemeanor if the offense results in bodily injury while a judicial officer is engaged in official duties or if the person who committed the offense placed certain infected bodily fluids or wastes on the judicial officer.

The bill also outlines when and where certain judicial officers may possess a firearm.

Senate Bill 339, which allows alcohol sales at the Indiana State Fair, passed 75-20 Tuesday in the House of Representatives. The bill will end a nearly 70-year-old ban on beer and alcohol sales at the fair. Indiana is the only state that continues to ban alcohol from its state fair.

Senate Bill 101, dubbed the “ag-gag” bill, passed the House 73-25 Tuesday. The legislation states that a person commits criminal trespass if, without an owner’s permission, he enters a portion of an agricultural operation used for production or any part of the real property of an agricultural operation, and causes property damage.

The bill, as introduced, allowed agricultural operators to post a notice that lists prohibited acts that may compromise the operation’s trade secrets or operations. Someone who intentionally or knowingly committed an act at the agricultural operation that is prohibited and listed on that notice would have committed a Level 6 felony. The introduced bill also raised the penalty for criminal trespass if certain levels of pecuniary loss result from the criminal trespass.

The bill was opposed by animal rights groups and the Hoosier State Press Association, which believe it is intended to silence or punish whistleblowers regarding agricultural and animal conditions.

Other bills are heading back to their house of origin after being amended. House Bill 1140, which requires the Department of Correction to create policies that provide for a schedule of progressive parole incentives and violation sanctions, passed the Senate 47-0 with amendments.

The House returned Senate Bill 27 to senators after approving the petitions for adoption legislation 95-0 with amendments. The bill, among other things, provides that the court in which a petition for adoption has been filed has exclusive jurisdiction over the child if there is a petition for adoption and a paternity action pending at the same time.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

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