IBJNews

Still no decisions on Indiana smoking, police-entry bills

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Legislators finished work Wednesday without an agreement yet on just how comprehensive a statewide smoking ban they might adopt and without the support of a major police group for a proposal laying out when residents might be legally justified in using force against police officers.

Both issues are in the hands of House and Senate negotiators trying to reach compromise versions for lawmakers to vote on ahead of Friday's planned adjournment of this year's legislative session.

Sponsors of the smoking ban bill said they were still pushing to have bars included in the ban even though a draft compromise circulating among lawmakers Wednesday would exempt bars.

That is one of the major sticking points. The House approved a ban on smoking in most public places that gave an 18-month exemption to bars, while the Senate passed a watered-down version last week that gave bars a complete exemption.

Democratic Rep. Charlie Brown of Gary, a sponsor of the bill, said he hadn't decided whether having the bar exemption in the bill would cause him to not agree with a compromise version.

"That is what backs me up several feet," Brown said. "I don't know whether I can sign it with all those bars in there."

Republican Senate President Pro Tem David Long has said the exemption for bars was necessary to get support from lawmakers such as himself, who had opposed previous attempts to ban smoking.

The House-passed bill also exempted casinos, private clubs and tobacco and cigar stores. The Senate also added new carve-outs for assorted businesses such as veterans homes and nursing homes and included a provision prohibiting cities and counties from adopting new tougher local restrictions.

Sen. Beverly Gard, R-Greenfield, said she didn't yet know how many of those Senate-added changes needed to stay in the bill, which senators approved on a 29-21 vote.

"I think we saw last week on the floor how tough it's going to be," Gard said.

Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels said Friday he wanted as few exemptions as possible but would accept a weakened version if that's what it takes to get some sort of smoke-free measure approved during his final year in office.

Bill sponsor Rep. Eric Turner, R-Cicero, said he was holding out for including bars in the ban and believed the governor's support was helping chances of getting a ban approved.

"He and I are on the same page: We want the minimum number of exemptions and to maximize the number of locations that are smoke free," Turner said. "I'm going to work to the very end to try to get that."

Negotiators are also working on a bill written in response to the public uproar over a state Supreme Court ruling last year that residents couldn't resist officers even during an illegal entry. It is apparent the legislators are going to end their session without consensus from law enforcement groups on the measure.

Indiana State Fraternal Order of Police attorney Leo Blackwell told a House-Senate conference committee that the group worries the proposal will give people improper justification for attacking officers.

Negotiators are trying to reach a compromise on the measure that specifies people are protected by the state's self-defense law if they reasonably believe force is necessary to protect themselves from unlawful actions by an officer. It also states that a person who is committing a crime is not justified in using any force against a police officer.

Supporters say the proposal strengthens the legal rights of people against government agents improperly entering their homes while also making it more difficult for anyone to argue they were acting in self-defense in using deadly force against an officer.

Blackwell said the FOP believed the Supreme Court decision gave the best protection for police officers and that the Legislature's proposal wouldn't help officers trying to protect the public.

"I do not agree that on the doorstep it affords any more protection for police officers," Blackwell said. "In fact it makes their job more dangerous."

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 IBJ 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
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT