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.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  2. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.

  3. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  4. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.

  5. Call Young and Young aAttorneys at Law theres ones handling a class action lawsuit