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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT