I note SB 370 concerning funeral director courtesy cards, mainly because the terminology seemed peculiar to me. Basically it requires the board of funeral and cemetery service to implement reciprocity provisions for funeral directors in neighboring states, allowing them to provide certain funeral services in Indiana; primarily transporting bodies, completing death certificates, and supervising funeral service as long as an Indiana funeral director is assisting. The permits issued by the board to these out of state funeral directors are termed “courtesy cards.” Maybe it’s just me, but in this context, the name has that polite, yet creepy vibe I associate with funerals.

Gov. Daniels has signed SEA 1 which gives individuals the right to use force, in some cases deadly force, against law enforcement officers. The Indiana Law Blog has posted a news release with the governor’s statement explaining his decision to sign the bill.

He says this actually narrows the situations in which individuals can use force against law enforcement officers. I think that’s hogwash. My major complaint against this bill, the more I think about it, is that it permits use of force not only where a law enforcement officer is acting unlawfully but also where an individual thinks (or, in practice, claims to think) the officer is acting unlawfully.

It speaks to “reasonable belief.” I wonder if courts will permit inquiry into the individual’s overall knowledge of the law to establish that it would be unreasonable for particular individuals to believe they know what the law has to say about the officer’s actions in a given situation. See, generally, the Dunning-Kruger effect.

SB 15 doesn’t do much of substance but does require a study on the brain injury services offered in Indiana, including: any deficiencies in the provision of brain injury services in Indiana; how to implement additional brain injury services and neurobehavioral rehabilitation programs in Indiana; development of a licensure category for neurobehavioral rehabilitation facilities and the criteria to be included for the license; assessment of whether incentives are needed to encourage the provision of brain injury services and neurobehavioral services in Indiana; determination of the adequate reimbursement under the Medicaid program for brain injury and neurobehavioral services; and determination of whether funds from the Medicaid health facility closure and conversion fund could be used to assist qualified service providers in opening a neurobehavioral rehabilitation facility or to enhance reimbursement for brain injury or neurobehavioral services in Indiana.

SB 1 is the defend your home against tyranny bill. Sounds great when you put it like that. “Look at me! I’m George Washington. Take that King George! Blam! Blam!”

But, really what we’re talking about is a lot of grey areas where citizens pissed off about government action – even legal government action – will selectively perceive tyranny when law enforcement is acting legally or in a way that can be remedied after the fact unless someone gets hurt. Used to be, the General Assembly sent the message that you probably ought to wait and sort things out later instead of shooting first. Now, they offer up a word salad that doesn’t do anyone any favors.

The first sign of danger is that the General Assembly felt it necessary to offer a “purpose” section. Good legislation is like a good joke. If you have to explain it first, you’re doing it wrong.

Then, we get three new subsections:

(i) A person is justified in using reasonable force against a public servant if the person reasonably believes the force is necessary to:
(1) protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force;
(2) prevent or terminate the public servant’s unlawful entry of or attack on the person’s dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle; or
(3) prevent or terminate the public servant’s unlawful trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person’s possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person’s immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect.
(j) Notwithstanding subsection (i), a person is not justified in using force against a public servant if:
(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;
(2) the person provokes action by the public servant with intent to cause bodily injury to the public servant;
(3) the person has entered into combat with the public servant or is the initial aggressor, unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the public servant the intent to do so and the public servant nevertheless continues
or threatens to continue unlawful action; or
(4) the person reasonably believes the public servant is:
(A) acting lawfully; or
(B) engaged in the lawful execution of the public servant’s official duties.
(k) A person is not justified in using deadly force against a public servant whom the person knows or reasonably should know is a public servant unless:
(1) the person reasonably believes that the public servant is:
(A) acting unlawfully; or
(B) not engaged in the execution of the public servant’s official duties; and
(2) the force is reasonably necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person.

So, if you got evicted from your property but don’t believe the court proceedings were proper (perhaps you are a sovereign citizen), then you would seemingly be able to use force, but maybe not deadly force, against the Sheriff enforcing the writ under subsection (i). A person can use force if the person “reasonably” believes the force is necessary to prevent the public servant’s unlawful interference with the person’s property. When does a person’s belief become unreasonable? I have no idea.

Not content to just let it rest this short session — reserved, I’ve heard it said, for “emergency” issues — anti-gay legislators had signaled that they’d let the Indiana Youth Group license plate matter rest. Despite that, there were rumblings that they’d try to jam it into an end of session conference committee despite the fact the provision hadn’t passed either house on the first go round.

Presumably spurred on by their masters at the American Family Association of Indiana and Advance America of Indiana, it looks as if these legislators are apparently urging the State of Indiana to subject the group’s contract to special scrutiny based on the content of their speech and their sexual orientation.

Mary Beth Schneider reports:

While legislative leaders did not officially declare the effort to pass a bill dead, Senate President Pro Tempore David Long said another “solution” had been found: Voiding the Indiana Youth Group plate.

Long said he believed the Indiana Youth Group had violated its state contract and that it should be cancelled.

“There’s a contract clause apparently which I just saw today which apparently says you cannot remarket those for value and they’re doing that clearly on their internet site,” Long said. “And if they are it says you ‘shall’ terminate the contract.”

Apparently they gave out a couple of low numbered plates to some donors; something the BMV has traditionally allowed other groups to do.

I love the smell of an equal protection lawsuit in the morning. Smells like victory.

Senator Steele’s SB 18 concerning one’s duty to support a child is in conference committee.

The bill reduces the obligation from when the child is 21 to when the child is 19. It provides a mechanism for a child to petition for support for educational needs until the child is 19 (or 21 if the support order went into effect prior to this legislation.) To me the drafting is unclear – I’m not sure if the intent is to exclude education from the duty of support or to say that the end of the duty to support does not end the duty to provide for educational needs.

SB 1 passed the House by a vote of 74 – 24.

The meat of it specifies that a person can use force against the police if the person claims to believe the force is necessary to protect the person or another from imminent police force that the person claims to believe will be unlawful; terminate what the person claims to believe is an unlawful attack or entry into the person’s residence or vehicle by the police; or prevent what the person claims to believe is an unlawful trespass or interference with the person’s property.

This permission to use force against the officer is not allowed if the person is in the middle of committing a crime or escaping; the person provokes the action and intends to cause bodily injury to the police officer; or enters into combat with the officer or is the aggressor. The permission is also not granted if the suspect admits to believing the officer is acting lawfully.

Deadly force is permitted if necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third party and the suspect does not admit to believing the police officer was acting lawfully.

This reliance on the subjective belief of the suspect is just begging for trouble. I know a lot of people have fantasies about minding their own business when rogue cops are doing unspeakable things while the person is forced to stand by and watch helplessly; but that’s not how this law is going to play out. There are going to be a lot of hot heads and criminals encouraged to violently confront the police, then, after the fact, claim they thought the officer was acting unlawfully.

I think the right to use force against the police should be confined to when the police are both: a) acting illegally, and b) the actions will cause injury that cannot be reversed by later judicial action.

At a minimum, I’d hope the General Assembly would clarify that this legislation is not intended to limit the Tort Claims Act immunities in any fashion and that this is an affirmative defense where the person using force against the officer has the burden of proof.

The Indiana Property Tax Reporter has a blog entry entitled House Votes to Sanction LaPorte County for Delayed Property Tax Bills. The measure is included in SB 19 having to do with real estate assessment.

Senate Bill 19 requires LaPorte County pay $1 million to local governments and school corporations for every year the county remains behind on property tax collections, currently four years.

The measure also allows the county commissioners to appoint a “special master” to carry out the work of the county treasurer and auditor, effectively replacing both elected officials.