ILNews

Committees discuss trafficking, sex crimes, child protection

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A tougher state law for human and child trafficking was a key topic on this week’s legislative interim study committees agendas. With the Super Bowl less than six months away, the Indiana attorney general’s office is pushing for prompt action.

Legislative study committee members explored other issues during meetings on Thursday, talking about child protection, sex offenders, and if any change in Indiana law is needed in response to concerns that surfaced following the Casey Anthony trial in Florida. But it was the AG’s push on trafficking that seemed to be the most time-sensitive item.

Deputy Attorneys General David Miller and Abby Kuzma told members of the Code Evaluation Commission that the human trafficking issue is a top priority this year for Indiana AG Greg Zoeller and the National Association of Attorneys General.

Providing statistics that trafficking is a $32 billion global industry impacting more than 12 million children and adults who are shipped from the U.S. across international borders, the Hoosier attorneys said this is already a federal crime but that states need to beef up their protections to deal with it.

Specifically, they contend that big-draw events such as the Super Bowl, coming to Indianapolis in early February, make this a priority for Indiana. Other past Super Bowl locations have experienced trafficking during their events, they explained. Kuzma is part of a task force to address this issue in Indiana that includes the U.S. attorney.

The General Assembly added Indiana Code 35-42-3.5-1 addressing human trafficking years ago, but the statute is too weak, according to Miller. He said lawmakers should consider eliminating the “threat or force” elements of the statute because sometimes that doesn’t apply to these situations, and the law should be broadened to include more generalized criminal activity that may occur during trafficking. The Legislature should also consider adding a specific child trafficking provision for victims younger than 18, he said.

With the next legislative session starting in January 2012, lawmakers discussed the possibility of addressing this measure either on Organization Day in November or possibly with an early filing of a bill to allow the issue to be addressed promptly once the session begins in January.

Committee members didn’t vote on that item. They spent the remainder of the meeting discussing sex offenders and recidivism trends. They discussed re-evaluating housing restrictions as well as layered sentencing options that would enable courts to make sure certain sex offenders receive sufficient supervision and behavioral treatment services after their incarceration periods. Members examined a proposal from Sen. Randy Head, R-Logansport, about expanding criminal code to apply to Internet sex predators that can be difficult to prosecute.

No votes were taken on these or other proposals discussed.

Members of the Criminal Law and Sentencing Committee also met and discussed creation of a new child protection registry that would mirror Indiana’s existing Do Not Call lists and give parents the ability to submit email addresses that children have access to in order to prevent certain age-sensitive marketing materials from being sent. Michigan and Utah have established these registries in the past decade, and the company offering those tools is trying to bring its services to Indiana.

The committee also briefly addressed the need for a Casey Anthony-inspired law in Indiana and whether the state statute on penalties for failing to report a dead body or missing child needed to be strengthened. No one seemed eager to make changes or discuss the idea and no one appeared at the hearing to discuss it, leaving the committee to decide existing statutes may be adequate. Failing to report a dead body within three hours is currently a misdemeanor in Indiana.

Next week, the Commission on Courts meets to discuss new court and judicial officer requests. The Indiana Legislative Council’s subcommittee studying the Indiana Supreme Court’s Barnes v. State is also scheduled to meet.
 

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. Actually, and most strikingly, the ruling failed to address the central issue to the whole case: Namely, Black Knight/LPS, who was NEVER a party to the State court litigation, and who is under a 2013 consent judgment in Indiana (where it has stipulated to the forgery of loan documents, the ones specifically at issue in my case)never disclosed itself in State court or remediated the forged loan documents as was REQUIRED of them by the CJ. In essence, what the court is willfully ignoring, is that it is setting a precedent that the supplier of a defective product, one whom is under a consent judgment stipulating to such, and under obligation to remediate said defective product, can: 1.) Ignore the CJ 2.) Allow counsel to commit fraud on the state court 3.) Then try to hide behind Rooker Feldman doctrine as a bar to being held culpable in federal court. The problem here is the court is in direct conflict with its own ruling(s) in Johnson v. Pushpin Holdings & Iqbal- 780 F.3d 728, at 730 “What Johnson adds - what the defendants in this suit have failed to appreciate—is that federal courts retain jurisdiction to award damages for fraud that imposes extrajudicial injury. The Supreme Court drew that very line in Exxon Mobil ... Iqbal alleges that the defendants conducted a racketeering enterprise that predates the state court’s judgments ...but Exxon Mobil shows that the Rooker Feldman doctrine asks what injury the plaintiff asks the federal court to redress, not whether the injury is “intertwined” with something else …Because Iqbal seeks damages for activity that (he alleges) predates the state litigation and caused injury independently of it, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not block this suit. It must be reinstated.” So, as I already noted to others, I now have the chance to bring my case to SCOTUS; the ruling by Wood & Posner is flawed on numerous levels,BUT most troubling is the fact that the authors KNOW it's a flawed ruling and choose to ignore the flaws for one simple reason: The courts have decided to agree with former AG Eric Holder that national banks "Are too big to fail" and must win at any cost-even that of due process, case precedent, & the truth....Let's see if SCOTUS wants a bite at the apple.

  2. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  3. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  4. Please I need help with my class action lawsuits, im currently in pro-se and im having hard time findiNG A LAWYER TO ASSIST ME

  5. Access to the court (judiciary branch of government) is the REAL problem, NOT necessarily lack of access to an attorney. Unfortunately, I've lived in a legal and financial hell for the past six years due to a divorce (where I was, supposedly, represented by an attorney) in which I was defrauded of settlement and the other party (and helpers) enriched through the fraud. When I attempted to introduce evidence and testify (pro se) in a foreclosure/eviction, I was silenced (apparently on procedural grounds, as research I've done since indicates). I was thrown out of a residence which was to be sold, by a judge who refused to allow me to speak in (the supposedly "informal") small claims court where the eviction proceeding (by ex-brother-in-law) was held. Six years and I can't even get back on solid or stable ground ... having bank account seized twice, unlawfully ... and now, for the past year, being dragged into court - again, contrary to law and appellate decisions - by former attorney, who is trying to force payment from exempt funds. Friday will mark fifth appearance. Hopefully, I'll be allowed to speak. The situation I find myself in shouldn't even be possible, much less dragging out with no end in sight, for years. I've done nothing wrong, but am watching a lot of wrong being accomplished under court jurisdiction; only because I was married to someone who wanted and was granted a divorce (but was not willing to assume the responsibilities that come with granting the divorce). In fact, the recalcitrant party was enriched by well over $100k, although it was necessarily split with other actors. Pro bono help? It's a nice dream ... but that's all it is, for too many. Meanwhile, injustice marches on.

ADVERTISEMENT