ILNews

What the attorney general is watching

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The session is about halfway over, but there are still several bills making their way through the General Assembly that the Indiana Attorney General's Office is watching.

The Attorney General's Office is typically neutral on the majority of bills that move through the legislature, but it does watch bills that may affect the office, such as bills dealing with the criminal justice system. The office also has two deputy attorneys general who are at the House and Senate every day as a resource for legislators and to advocate for bills that the AG's office supports or has a point of view on, AG public information officer Bryan Corbin said.

There are several bills moving this session that the AG's office does support. The centerpiece of the AG's legislative agenda this year is Senate Bill 405, a gaming bill. The office has interest in only one provision of the bill - the one that would provide transparency for Local Development Agreement entities that receive casino revenue. It stems from a situation in East Chicago in which a for-profit local development company receives a cut of casino money under a LDA. Because it's for-profit, there's no telling as to where the money went and has led to years of litigation.

"We feel this is a protection that the public needs to have transparency and accountability so you don't see the type of abuses that occurred in East Chicago occur in other places around the state," Corbin said.

That bill has made it out of the Senate and on to the House for consideration.

The AG's office is also interested in House Bill 1226, which will crack down on repeat offenders of Medicaid fraud. The bill will also clarify that the AG's office's ID theft unit is the one to call when someone discovers abandoned medical records or other records containing personal information. HB 1226 is before the Senate for consideration.

Another bill the attorney general is interested in is SB 394, which passed through the Senate and moved to the House. It would update state law so that local courts, instead of the parties, would have to notify the AG's office whenever a plaintiff files a declaratory-judgment suit seeking to declare a law unconstitutional. Corbin said there have been five or six cases over the last few years where someone had filed a constitutional challenge and the office didn't receive timely notice of it.

Another part of the bill would allow the attorney general to file an amicus brief in any lawsuit in the state without seeking the court's permission first. In the federal appellate court system, the attorney general has the right to file amicus briefs without seeking leave from the court first. Currently in Indiana, appellate rules require parties who wish to file an amicus brief, including the attorney general, receive permission from the court.

Corbin said the legislation attempts to have congruity between state and federal courts and that the office is pursuing the proposal first through a statutory change instead of through a rule change with the courts.

"No one can predict how often the AG's office would tender amicus briefs in Indiana trial court cases ... perhaps not very often. But the attorney general is the lawyer for state government, and so his legal argument could be useful and relevant to a trial court in a local case," he said.

SB 394 is in the House for consideration.

The Indiana Attorney General's Office also supports HB 1332, which deals with mortgage fraud, credit services, and property fraud; SB 356, a professional licensing bill; and HB 1083, which would allow property to be considered abandoned after three years and thus then can be reclaimed through the Unclaimed Property Program. These bills have moved through their respective houses and are in the other for consideration.

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. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT