SB 26 makes several changes to Indiana criminal law, centered on creating a new offense for signal jamming and expanding forfeiture and related enforcement provisions. The bill defines a “signal jammer” as a device intended to block or interfere with authorized radio communications, including GPS, police radar, wireless networking, and personal communications services. It prohibits manufacturing, selling, importing, marketing, possessing, using, or operating such devices, and classifies a violation as a Level 6 felony, or a Level 5 felony if the jammer is used to disrupt a critical infrastructure facility or the communications of a public safety agency.
The bill also updates Indiana’s critical infrastructure statutes to align definitions used in criminal trespass and related offenses, and it adds “signal jammer” to the code so it can be used consistently in enforcement provisions. In addition, SB 26 broadens and clarifies civil forfeiture law by listing numerous categories of property subject to seizure when tied to specified crimes, including drug trafficking, terrorism-related offenses, human trafficking, prostitution, fraud, counterfeiting, tobacco violations, and certain repeat intoxicated-driving or suspended-driving offenses. It also adds signal jammers to the list of property that can be seized when used in unlawful conduct.
The bill’s impact on state law is to give law enforcement and prosecutors a new tool against devices that can interfere with communications and public safety operations, while also reinforcing forfeiture remedies for a wide range of serious offenses. It affects people who manufacture, sell, possess, or use signal jammers, as well as owners of vehicles, equipment, and other property connected to enumerated criminal activity. The bill takes effect July 1, 2025.
Overall, the bill appears to have broad bipartisan support, as reflected in strong Senate and House votes and final conference committee approval. The voting history suggests little organized opposition at the chamber level, though the House third reading and conference committee votes show some dissent. The general sentiment is favorable toward strengthening public safety, communications security, and anti-crime enforcement, especially around critical infrastructure and emergency communications.
The main point of contention is likely the breadth of the new prohibition and the expanded forfeiture framework. Critics could be concerned about criminalizing possession of signal jammers even apart from actual misuse, and about the scope of property seizure provisions that reach vehicles, real property, equipment, and proceeds tied to a long list of offenses. Supporters, by contrast, appear to view the bill as a targeted response to interference with law enforcement, emergency response, and infrastructure security.
SB 26 amends Indiana’s criminal code and forfeiture statutes by creating a new felony offense for unlawful use of a signal jammer, defining that term, and tying it to enhanced penalties when critical infrastructure or public safety communications are disrupted. It also revises the definition of critical infrastructure facility and adds related cross-references so the new offense and existing trespass/security laws work together. Separately, it expands and clarifies seizure and forfeiture authority for property connected to drug crimes, terrorism, human trafficking, fraud, counterfeiting, tobacco offenses, and certain repeat impaired-driving offenses, including specific treatment of vehicles and other property.
The bill’s overall sentiment appears strongly supportive and public-safety oriented. It passed the Senate unanimously on third reading and later cleared the House and both chambers on conference committee reports with large margins, indicating broad agreement on the need to address signal jamming and reinforce enforcement tools. The limited no votes suggest some reservations, but not enough to prevent enactment.
The likely areas of contention are the new criminal prohibition on mere possession or sale of signal jammers and the breadth of the forfeiture provisions. Opponents may worry about overcriminalization, unintended impacts on legitimate equipment owners, and the reach of property seizure rules, while supporters emphasize the risk signal jammers pose to GPS, police radar, wireless networks, emergency communications, and critical infrastructure. The bill’s enhanced forfeiture rules for vehicles, real property, and other assets tied to a wide range of offenses may also draw due-process or proportionality concerns.