July 1 is new law day

July 1, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

It’s July 1, and that means new laws take effect in Indiana. Many of the 115 new laws passed by the General Assembly this year become effective today.

Don’t be offended if the cashier at your favorite liquor store or supermarket asks for your ID, even if you are obviously older than 21. The new law requires everyone to be carded.

If you owe money on your child support, best to stay away from our state’s riverboat casinos and horse-racing facilities. They are required to withhold cash winnings from delinquent parents who owe more than $2,000 and are at least three months behind in payments.

Pharmacies and other retailers will have to warn you that if you buy more than 3.6 grams of medicine with ephedrine or pseudoephedrine, you’re committing a crime. Look out for signs posted about the warning.

The courts can require the defendant in a domestic violence case to wear a GPS tracking devices as a condition of bail.

Certain courts also may now establish a problem-solving court for alternative treatment and rehabilitation.

If you drive your car while committing or attempting to commit operating while intoxicated, and kill a pregnant woman, you could be charged with involuntary manslaughter.

If you try to find out if your neighbor has a gun permit, you may have trouble. A new law says information submitted by someone to get or renew a gun permit and the name, address, or any other info that may be used to identify that person is confidential and not open to public inspection.

There are obviously many more laws that take effect today. You can read them all at http://www.in.gov/legislative/index.htm.
 

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
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT