ILNews

Lawmakers miss self-imposed deadline

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana General Assembly tried to end the session more than a week before the constitutional March 14 deadline, but impasses on school funding and unemployment insurance caused the legislators to miss their March 4 self-imposed deadline.

Several bills of interest to the legal community made it out of conference committee, a few with major changes. Legislators cut out the language in Senate Enrolled Act 307 that established Bartholomew Superior Court 3 and reorganized Clark Superior Courts into a unified Circuit Court. Instead, the bill reverted back to its original form of dealing only with Floyd County court matters.

House Enrolled Act 1276, which had been amended to require the Judicial Technology and Automation Committee to report divorce decree statistics each year, was completely stripped in conference committee and converted into a bill on French Lick resort matters. When originally filed, the bill dealt with domestic violence, bullying, and sending of sexual material, but was later amended to focus on the release of records, HIV testing, and JTAC matters.

SEA 224 was amended in conference committee to make the new filing and notice requirements for sex offenders effective upon passage instead of July 1, 2010. The bill was amended during the session to include language addressing the process of removing names of sex offenders from the registry if they qualify.

The Indiana Supreme Court's 2009 decision in Wallace v. State had caused confusion about the process. Now sex offenders will need to file a petition in court and request a court order for removal. The prosecutor will receive notice and have a chance to respond, and the offender would have to provide information to prove he or she is no longer eligible for listing on the registry. If the judge orders removal, the Department of Correction would have to grant it.

Senate Bill 399, which deals with caps on fines for moving violations, now says that a person who admits the violation on the day of the person's court date or who contests the ticket under certain circumstances may not be required to pay more than court costs plus a judgment of $35.50. The conference committee also resolved a conflict between its language and language in HEA 1154, a bill dealing with Marion County courts.

Language concerning Local Development Agreement transparency may not be dead yet. The language was originally inserted into SB 405, which died in the House. There is a chance the language will be inserted into HB 1086, an economic-development bill currently in conference committee, said Bryan Corbin, public information officer for the Attorney General's Office. The AG supports only this language in the bill, which would require non-profit and for-profit LDA agencies that receive casino money to disclose to the state how they distribute grant money. This language failed to pass during the 2009 session.

Two bills of relevance to the courts remained in conference committee as of Indiana Lawyer deadline Thursday - SB 149, involving Department of Child Services matters including out-of-state placements; and HB 1271, which deals with problem-solving courts.

Already before the governor awaiting signatures are HEA 1100, which prohibits an inmate in a county jail from having a cell phone; HEA 1186 on interlocal agreements concerning courts; and HEA 1350 on uniform acts concerning civil procedure.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT