SB 127 creates a new chapter in the Indiana Code governing “battery charged security devices,” a type of security device that interfaces with an alarm system and uses a commercial storage battery. The bill defines the devices and related terms, including “alarm system,” “IEC standards,” and “unit” (meaning a county, city, or town), and limits the chapter’s application to devices meeting specified technical and placement conditions.
Under the bill, the covered devices must be located outside areas zoned exclusively for single-family or multi-family residential use, use a battery of no more than 12 volts DC, meet IEC energizer characteristics, be installed along a non-electric perimeter fence or wall at least five feet high, and include conspicuous warning signs at specified intervals. Local governments may not prohibit these devices, require a separate permit or fee beyond what is already required for other alarm systems, or impose installation or operational requirements that conflict with the new chapter. The act is declared an emergency, making it effective upon passage.
Impact
The bill preempts counties, cities, and towns from adopting or enforcing ordinances or resolutions that ban or add extra permitting, fees, or inconsistent requirements for qualifying battery charged security devices. It effectively standardizes local regulation of these devices statewide and adds a new local-government chapter to Title 36 of the Indiana Code, while preserving existing alarm-system permit or fee structures that apply generally to other alarm systems.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have broad bipartisan support and little visible opposition. It passed the Senate 49-0, the House 93-2, and then the Senate concurred with House amendments 49-0, indicating strong legislative approval. The absence of committee transcript discussion suggests the measure was relatively noncontroversial or technical in nature.
Contention
The main policy issue is local control versus statewide uniformity. The bill restricts what counties, cities, and towns may regulate, so any concern would likely come from local governments or residents who prefer stricter local rules, additional permitting, or different safety standards. On the other side, supporters likely favored a uniform statewide framework for security devices and alarm-system integration, especially for businesses using these systems.