ILNews

Committees wrapping up business

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

With legislative deadlines fast approaching for the Indiana General Assembly, lawmakers have reached crunch time in moving legislation through for consideration before the short session comes to a close.

Legislative committees must move legislation on by early next week in order for it to survive and be considered for final passage. In anticipation, key committees have been doubling up on some meeting times to consider issues that may impact the state's legal community.

The Senate Judiciary Committee conducted two meetings this week to discuss various bills and issues, such as problem-solving courts. The House Public Policy Committee also had two meetings this week - the first focusing on a bill that would require casinos to check a state child-support collection database before allowing anyone to receive large wins. Despite objections from the state's gaming industry, the committee voted unanimously to send it to the full House for consideration.

At the House Judiciary Committee meeting Tuesday, lawmakers delved into various bills - including two that involved the Indiana Attorney General's Office. One allows the solicitor general to be notified of any constitutional challenges filed in state courts and to be an amicus party on those cases if wanted. The committee passed that 5-2 and sent it to the full House for consideration.

The other is SB 224 that involves "sexting," a topic that is being referred to a study committee for further review. But an amendment offered and being discussed specifically relates to the Indiana Supreme Court ruling last year in Wallace v. State, No. 49S02-0803-CR-138, involving who must be placed on the state's sex offender registry if crimes were committed before laws changed and subsequently would have required them to register. Since that ruling, the Department of Correction has required offenders to get a court order before being removed, while local sheriffs' have interpreted the ruling to mean all pre-1994 offenders should be removed at the onset. An amendment introduced to SB 224 this week would require the court-order method, and while it's been sent back for revisions, the amendment is expected to be introduced Monday.

Lawmakers have through March 3 to cast final votes on legislation before returning bills to their house of origin where amendments or legislation will again be reviewed. The session is slated to end March 14.

ADVERTISEMENT

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