ILNews

Governor signs human trafficking bill

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels has signed Senate Enrolled Act 4, which more clearly defines human trafficking and strengthens penalties for that crime. The new law is effective immediately.

Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller recommended last year that legislators pass the new law before Super Bowl XLVI on Feb. 5, due to concerns that large sporting events tend to be magnets for organized crime rings that promote prostitution. The legislation passed the Indiana House by a vote of 93-0 after passing the Senate 48-0.

Previously, under Indiana law, solicitation of a minor was a crime, but Zoeller said a loophole in the law failed to separately address people who profit from the sale of sex with minors.

Before the legislative session began, the Criminal Code Evaluation Commission fine-tuned the bill, which was authored by Republican senators Randy Head, of Logansport, Jim Banks, of Columbia City, and Greg Walker, of Columbus.

“The message we send today is ‘don’t try it here.’ Super Bowl XLVI in Indianapolis is where this practice ends,” said Daniels. “Thanks to Senator Head and Attorney General Zoeller and those who brought this problem to our attention so we could act to give law enforcement officials the tools they need.”

The law mandates a Class B felony for anyone who knowingly or intentionally recruits, harbors or transports a child younger than age 16 for the purpose of coerced labor or prostitution.

According to the Initiative Against Sexual Trafficking, it is estimated that 14,500 to 17,500 men, women and children are trafficked illegally into the United States each year.

“Though it is an honor for Indiana to host the Super Bowl, many sincere voices have brought to light the fact that human trafficking is a shameful practice we can’t ignore. With the Governor’s signature, law enforcement and prosecutors will have a new legal tool to combat this problem,” Zoeller said.


 

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

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. 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!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT