HB 1007, introduced by Rep. Duncan, enhances the penalty for domestic battery from a Class A misdemeanor to a Class D felony (from Class D felony to Class C felony with a prior offense.)

Without offering an opinion on whether it’s appropriate for this crime, there does seem to be a sort of penalty creep where penalties move up the scale. It’s a way of expressing frustration frustration that a crime is still happening. I have my doubts as to whether a person contemplating a crime really reflects much on the extent of the penalty when deciding whether or not to commit the offense.

SB 101, introduced by Senator Wyss, creates the crime of “invasion of privacy by photography” as a Class A misdemeanor.

I understand the motivation for this kind of legislation, and I sympathize, but it seems to get into “I know it when I see it” territory and, with the ever expanding number of cameras in the world may well be a losing battle.

The elements of the crime are –

A person who, without the consent of the individual:
(1) knowingly or intentionally surreptitiously photographs, video records, or captures a digital image of the private area of an individual by means of camera, a video camera, or any other type of video recording device; or
(2) performs the act described in subdivision (1) under circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that the individual’s private area would not be visible to the public; and
(3) performs the act described in subdivision (1) with the intent to:
(A) gratify the sexual desires of the person;
(B) humiliate or embarrass the individual; or
(C) publish, transmit, or otherwise disseminate the photograph, video, or digital image;

Where subdivision (2) refers to “the act described in subdivision (1),” it’s unclear whether the surreptitious nature of the recording is incorporated by reference or whether the bill is attempting to say you’re guilty even you weren’t surreptitious but the recording was done in a setting where the victim’s naughty bits wouldn’t be expected to be public.

Incidentally, as a matter of drafting, you probably shouldn’t list “1 and 2 or 3” because it’s confusing as to whether you mean “1+2 or 1+3” or maybe “1+2 or 3.” Working with a list like that, it’s better to make it either “1 and 2 and 3” or “1 or 2 or 3.”

SB 97, introduced by Sen. Errington, requires the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission to amend certain rules (170 IAC 4-4.5) it has with respect to “net metering.” When I first read this, I figured the term had to do with measuring use of the Internet. It actually has to do with allowing electric customers to supply power back to the utility and receive a credit for the supply.

I don’t know all the utility jargon, but it appears to expand the classes of customers to which a utility must offer net metering from residential and K-12 schools to just about everyone, including commercial, industrial, and agricultural customers. The rules must “allow a net metering customer to interconnect a generating facility with a nameplate capacity of two (2) megawatts or less to a distribution facility of an electric utility.” And the rules must allow interconnection for power generated through renewable sources.

SB 95, introduced by Sen. Errington, is a state wide smoking ban.

I suppose this is another opportunity to engage in discussion of property rights, government regulation, and their application to pollution and other discharges from the use of property that impact the rights of other people.

But, again, I don’t see the legislature rushing to take up this issue.

SB 94, introduced by Senator Errington would require public utility electricity suppliers to produce 20% of the electricity delivered to Indiana customers through renewable resources by the year 2022. The requirement would start at 1% in 2010 and go up by 1% per year through 2013 then 2% per year through 2021.

I don’t really understand the math involved in arriving at the percentages, but it appears that some part of it can be satisfied by reducing demand through energy efficiency measures.

I’m pretty sure this is going nowhere, so I’m not going to waste a lot of effort on it.

SB 61, introduced by Senator Steele and recommended by the the child custody and support advisory committee specifies that, if a genetic test indicates that a man is not a child’s father, that constitutes a material mistake of fact that existed in the execution of the paternity affidavit.

My guess is that this is probably meant to address the problem where a guy finds out he is not the father but ends up stuck paying child support because, legally, all the deadlines have passed for him to challenge paternity. (See, e.g.)

Incidentally, I see that Chris Worden of the iPOPA blog testified before the committee on the subject of paternity affidavits. I don’t know whether he commented on this issue, specifically, however.

In some circles, it seems that folks think kids these days are awful (or gay) because we don’t hit them enough. Never mind that I have never heard of the generation that was of the opinion that kids were growing up harder working, smarter, and more respectful than when they were kids. But, anyway, for corporal punishment aficianados, help is on the way in the form of Senator Randolph’s SB 124.

The bill specifies that a parent or guardian has the legal authority to apply reasonable force or impose reasonable confinement on the child if the parent or guardian believes its necessary to for the proper training, control, or education of the child. The bill provides a handy, but non-exhaustive, list of factors for determining whether the force used is “reasonable.” It includes things like the age and mental condition of the child as well as the proportionality of the force when compared to the transgression. But it also includes the child’s gender in the list of factors.

Which way to go with the gender thing? You can hit boys harder because they are supposed to be tougher. Or maybe you can hit girls sooner because they are supposed to be more obedient? Or is a kick to the groin more likely to be o.k. punishment for a girl but not for a boy. Otherwise, I can’t think why you’d want to bring genitalia into this discussion.

Update Jim cited Willis v. State (Ind. 2008) (pdf) in the comments. The proposed legislation seems to adopt the Supreme Court’s standard which, in turn, was adopting the standard set forth in section 147 of the Restatement of the Law (Second) Torts (1965).

Senator Leising has introduced SB 109 which imposes procedures on the state Department of Transportation if a state highway will be closed for more than five days.

If the Department of Transportation proposes to let a contract that would involve closing a state highway for at least 5 consecutive days, the Department of Transportation has to send notice to the county, the city or nearest city, and any township providing fire service to the area. Following that notice, any unit of government receiving notice can file an explanation of any objections within 30 days. If they do that, a representative from the Department of Transportation has to show up at a government meeting to offer a response to the objections. Aside from potentially enduring some verbal abuse at those meetings, however, the Department isn’t really required to do anything about the objections. The bill also doesn’t set forth any consequences should the Department fail to send out the required notice.