Indiana’s thousands of law enforcement officers were the focus of a Senate corrections committee on Tuesday, as legislators parsed through concerns about red flag laws and “buffer zones.”
The Hoosier State’s red flag law allows police to temporarily remove firearms from people considered “dangerous,” with an aim to curb gun violence. But Rep. Ben Smaltz, R-Auburn, said the designation doesn’t disappear after a case is resolved, leaving a “scarlet letter.”
Rep. Ben Smaltz, R-Auburn, introduces his bill raising speed limits on highways on Tuesday, Jan. 23, 2024. (Leslie Bonilla Muñiz/Indiana Capital Chronicle)
But, Smaltz clarified, “there’s no double jeopardy. This person can (again) be found to be dangerous later.”
The committee questioned whether law enforcement officers could see expunged red flag records, similar to how they can access expunged criminal records. Sen. Aaron Freeman, R-Indianapolis, vowed to file a second reading amendment if such language appeared to be unclear in order to codify law enforcement access to expunged red flag records.
The bill had unanimous support from the committee and testimony, which focused on the adverse impact a lingering red flag designation can have on someone.
“I’ve handled a lot — dozens and dozens and dozens — of red flag cases over the years,” said Guy Relford, an attorney who focuses on second amendment issues. “This is a civil proceeding … therefore there’s currently no expungement process. And in real situations, with real cases and real people, this has cost people jobs. It’s cost people volunteer opportunities.”
The proposal now moves to the full Senate for further consideration.
A “buffer zone” fix
Another bill before the committee sought to fix “vagueness” in the state’s 25-foot “buffer zone” law, under which a law enforcement officer can order someone to stand back during police duties.
Author Rep. Wendy McNamara, R-Evansville, said House Bill 1122 was a direct response to conflicting court decisions related to the 2023 law. One federal court concluded that the law was constitutional while another federal judge called the law unconstitutionally vague.
“It requires law enforcement that is legally engaged in their duties, who reasonably believes the presence of a person interferes, they may order a person to stop. And after that person has been asked to stop, or warned to stop, and that person knowingly, intentionally approaches, can be charged with a Class C misdemeanor,” said McNamara.
Plainfield Police Chief Kyle Prewitt likened the law to a rowdy patron at a local sporting event that provided “a measure of safety” to officers and the community.
“I kind of draw a similarity between this and a youth sporting event where a member of the crowd is being a little two boisterous. Nobody would bat an eye at an official telling that person to be quiet. (Or) if they didn’t then be quiet, to ask them to leave,” said Prewitt. “And if it came to it, to have them escorted out of the facility. I think it is very similar to that.” The committee approved the measure unanimously.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.
SUBSCRIBE
Indiana Capital Chronicle is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Indiana Capital Chronicle maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Niki Kelly for questions: info@indianacapitalchronicle.com.
