ILNews

JTAC fee, court-reporter licensing bills proposed

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Court reporters would need licenses, there would be more money to implement the statewide case management system in trial courts, and convicted sex offenders would be banned from public libraries if these bills introduced this session become law.

Legislators went back to work Wednesday, filing more bills, many of which are of interest to the legal community.

Court reporters will need to be licensed if Senate Bill 206 passes. The bill establishes a court reporter board, which would determine the qualifications for licensing and continuing education.

Senate Bill 215 would amend the forfeiture statute by defining how much of seized property is considered law enforcement costs, depending on the value of the property seized. The bill also would allow a prosecutor to retain an attorney to bring a forfeiture action only if the Indiana Attorney General approves the compensation agreement. It would also cap the private attorney’s compensation depending on the amount of property seized. The law would prohibit a prosecutor from hiring a prosecuting attorney or deputy prosecutor to bring a forfeiture action.

SB 246 prohibits a class-action suit being brought on behalf of a person who hasn’t agreed to be a party to the class action.

SB 301 proposes increasing the automated record keeping fee from $7 to $10 between July 1, 2011 and June 30, 2015. The fee would go back to $7 after July 1, 2015. The increased fee would go to the Judicial Technology and Automation Committee to pay for Odyssey, the statewide case management system it began implementing in late 2007. This isn’t the first time that this increased fee has been introduced. Last year, a similar bill was passed but died in conference committee.

SB 203 would establish a unified Circuit Court in Henry County. SB 212 provides that all Circuit, Superior, and Probate courts have original and concurrent jurisdiction in all civil and criminal cases and de novo appellate jurisdiction of appeals from city and town courts. In Marion County, these courts would have de novo appellate jurisdiction of appeals from Township Small Claims courts.

House Bill 1100 looks to ban sex offenders from public libraries. A registered sex offender who goes to the library would be committing a Class D felony, unless they are going there on Election Day to vote. Similar legislation was proposed during the 2010 session. HB 1108 would require a sexually violent predator or sex offender against children to inform their child’s elementary or secondary school that they are a sex offender. The legislation would only allow that offender on the school property if the offender is attending a meeting with a school official and is escorted by a school employee while on the property. All other sex offenders would be prohibited from being on school property unless the offender attends that particular school.

HB 1119 would create a rebuttable presumption that an award of joint legal custody is in the best interest of a child. The legislation also would repeal a provision that says a custodial parent may determine the child’s upbringing.

HB 1127 allows people who bring actions in court against the Indiana Department of Environmental Management to receive attorney’s fees for bringing the suit. It also establishes a litigation expenses reimbursement fund to compensate for attorney’s fees by depositing environmental civil penalties and 10 percent of the money the department would otherwise revert to the state general fund at the end of the fiscal year into the fund.

Legislators have until next week to file bills. A complete list of introduced legislation is available on the General Assembly’s website.
 

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. The is an unsigned editorial masquerading as a news story. Almost everyone quoted was biased in favor of letting all illegal immigrants remain in the U.S. (Ignoring that Obama deported 3.5 million in 8 years). For some reason Obama enforcing part of the immigration laws was O.K. but Trump enforcing additional parts is terrible. I have listed to press conferences and explanations of the Homeland Security memos and I gather from them that less than 1 million will be targeted for deportation, the "dreamers" will be left alone and illegals arriving in the last two years -- especially those arriving very recently -- will be subject to deportation but after the criminals. This will not substantially affect the GDP negatively, especially as it will take place over a number of years. I personally think this is a rational approach to the illegal immigration problem. It may cause Congress to finally pass new immigration laws rationalizing the whole immigration situation.

  2. Mr. Straw, I hope you prevail in the fight. Please show us fellow American's that there is a way to fight the corrupted justice system and make them an example that you and others will not be treated unfairly. I hope you the best and good luck....

  3. @ President Snow - Nah, why try to fix something that ain't broken??? You do make an excellent point. I am sure some Mickey or Minnie Mouse will take Ruckers seat, I wonder how his retirement planning is coming along???

  4. Can someone please explain why Judge Barnes, Judge Mathias and Chief Judge Vaidik thought it was OK to re weigh the evidence blatantly knowing that by doing so was against the rules and went ahead and voted in favor of the father? I would love to ask them WHY??? I would also like to ask the three Supreme Justices why they thought it was OK too.

  5. How nice, on the day of my car accident on the way to work at the Indiana Supreme Court. Unlike the others, I did not steal any money or do ANYTHING unethical whatsoever. I am suing the Indiana Supreme Court and appealed the failure of the district court in SDIN to protect me. I am suing the federal judge because she failed to protect me and her abandonment of jurisdiction leaves her open to lawsuits because she stripped herself of immunity. I am a candidate for Indiana Supreme Court justice, and they imposed just enough sanction so that I am made ineligible. I am asking the 7th Circuit to remove all of them and appoint me as the new Chief Justice of Indiana. That's what they get for dishonoring my sacrifice and and violating the ADA in about 50 different ways.

ADVERTISEMENT