HB 1155 updates Indiana’s criminal forfeiture and criminal code provisions to address signal jammers and to expand/clarify what property may be seized in connection with a range of criminal offenses. The bill adds a new offense for knowingly or intentionally manufacturing, offering for sale, importing, marketing, selling, possessing, using, or operating a signal jammer, making that conduct a Level 6 felony. It also defines “signal jammer” as a device intended to block, jam, or interfere with licensed or authorized radio communications, including interference with personal communications services, police radar, GPS, and wireless networking services.
In addition to the new jammer offense, the bill amends Indiana’s forfeiture statute to expressly include signal jammers among property subject to seizure when used in committing unlawful use of a signal jammer. It also makes a series of technical and substantive updates to the list of property that may be seized when tied to drug offenses, terrorism-related offenses, human trafficking, prostitution, fraud, counterfeiting, tobacco violations, and certain other crimes. The bill preserves protections for common carriers and certain owners who did not knowingly permit the illegal use of their property, and it creates evidentiary rules making certain items found near drug offenders prima facie evidence of forfeitable property.
HB 1155 would change Indiana law by creating a new felony offense for signal jammer activity and by expanding the state’s civil forfeiture framework to cover signal jammers used in that offense. It amends IC 34-24 on seizure and forfeiture, adds a new definition in IC 35-31.5, and creates a new criminal prohibition in IC 35-45-2. The practical effect is to give law enforcement and prosecutors an explicit basis to seize jammer devices and to charge possession, sale, or use of such devices as a Level 6 felony, while also refining forfeiture rules for vehicles, equipment, money, and other property connected to specified crimes.
The bill appears to have broad support. It was reported out of the House Courts and Criminal Code Committee unanimously, 13-0, and then passed the House on third reading by a wide margin, 89-2. The available record suggests the measure was viewed as a targeted public-safety and law-enforcement bill rather than a controversial policy shift.
The main substantive issue is the scope of forfeiture and seizure authority, especially the inclusion of signal jammers and the continued broad reach of property forfeiture tied to drug, terrorism, fraud, and other offenses. Potential concerns could include whether the seizure provisions are too expansive or whether they adequately protect innocent owners, but the bill includes exceptions for common carriers and for owners who did not knowingly permit the illegal use of their property. No committee debate transcript is available, and the strong committee and floor votes indicate little visible opposition in the legislative record.