ILNews

Committee continues hearing on ‘ag-gag’ bill Tuesday

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Corrections and Criminal Law Committee will hear six bills Tuesday, including controversial legislation concerning trespassing on agricultural land.

Senate Bill 101 expands the criminal trespass statute by making it a crime to knowingly or intentionally enter the real property of another person without that person’s consent. The bill allows 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 commits an act at the agricultural operation that is prohibited and listed on that notice commits a Level 6 felony.

The penalty for criminal trespass is raised if certain levels of pecuniary loss result from the criminal trespass.

This is a version of the controversial legislation from 2013 dubbed the “ag-gag bill” that died on the last day of the session. Several groups, including the Hoosier State Press Association and the Hoosier Environmental Council, oppose the bill, believing it is intended to stifle the expression of opinions concerning agricultural processes. The legislation would silence or punish individuals who want to share photos, videos or opinions on how agribusinesses operate and their impact on food safety, employee safety, animal treatment, and other issues, according to the HSPA.

Members of the agricultural community, such as the Indiana Pork Advocacy Coalition, support the legislation

The committee previously discussed the bill at its meeting Jan. 7.
The committee will also hear:

•    SB 169, which outlines when providing a firearm to someone is a Level 6 felony, such as buying a gun with the intent to resell it to someone with the belief that the gun will be used in the commission of a crime.

•    SB 134, which makes it a Level 6 felony for a person to file a false lien or false encumbrance against another person.

•    SB 43 on child seduction and law enforcement officers.

•    SB 170 on sexual misconduct by a service provider with someone who is subject to lawful supervision by the Department of Correction, a court, a probation department, or a community corrections or transition program, or another similar program.

•    SB 251, which amends the law to make it a Level 6 felony to  recklessly, knowingly or intentionally fail to restrain a dog that enters the property of another person, attacks that person, and the attack results in serious bodily injury. Currently, it’s a Level 6 felony only if that attack results in death.
 

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. 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?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. 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.

  4. 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!

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT