ILNews

Power of attorney, Allen County magistrate bills ready for enrollment

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Legislation that deals with power of attorney and that would give Allen Circuit Court a second full-time magistrate have made it through both houses of the Indiana Legislature.

Senate Bill 157 will allow for copies of a power of attorney to have the same force and effect as the original as long as the person granting the power of attorney certifies that the copy is correct and true. The bill also asks the Legislative Council to take a look at issues related to POA during the 2012 legislative interim. SB 152 allows for the Allen Circuit judge to appoint a second full-time magistrate beginning July 1, 2013. The bill repeals the judge’s authority to appoint a hearing officer who has the powers of a magistrate.

SB 97, which looks to narrow the scope of Indiana’s public intoxication law, is being considered by a conference committee. The bill will address the issues that arose in Moore v. State, in which the Indiana Supreme court reinstated the public intoxication conviction of a woman who was riding in her car that was being driven by a sober driver. The car was pulled over and police discovered the driver didn’t have a valid license. When Brenda Moore couldn’t drive the car because of her state of intoxication, police arrested her for public intoxication.

The legislation says that someone can’t be convicted of public intoxication unless the person endangers his or her own life, someone else’s life, or is likely to disturb the peace, create a disturbance, or harass someone else.

Another bill inspired by a Supreme Court ruling – Barnes v. State – has passed third reading in the House and has been sent back to the Senate with amendments. SB 1 specifies that a person may use reasonable force against any other person – including law enforcement – in certain circumstances.

SB 235, which would add a fee to address declining IOTLA funds, has stalled in the House Ways and Means Committee, but language was added to House Bill 1049 creating a $1 pro bono legal fee before July 1, 2020, that would go to the Indiana Bar Foundation. That bill, which also addresses courts, the inspector general and protection orders, is back in the House for consideration.

Legislation that would phase out Indiana’s inheritance tax, SB 293, has passed the House and been sent back to the Senate with amendments. SB 18, which dictates that a parent no longer has to provide child support after a child turns 19, is also back in the Senate with amendments.

Thus far, Gov. Mitch Daniels has received 26 enrolled acts this session and signed 18. To view the status of these or any other bills, visit the General Assembly’s bill watch page.
 

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. 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