SB 219 revises Indiana’s criminal trespass statute and expands the list of conduct that can constitute criminal trespass. The bill keeps the base offense as a Class A misdemeanor, but it adds or clarifies several specific trespass scenarios involving agricultural operations, scientific research facilities, vacant or abandoned property, unsafe buildings, railroad property, locked or otherwise nonpublic areas, and polling places. It also recognizes purple-mark posting as a method of giving notice that entry is prohibited, and it sets detailed requirements for how those markings must be placed.
The bill also increases penalties in certain circumstances. Trespass on a scientific research facility, a public utility facility, school property, or a school bus can be charged as a Level 6 felony, and repeat offenses on the same property can also be elevated. Separate felony enhancements apply when trespass on agricultural or scientific research property involves property damage above specified dollar thresholds. The measure includes exceptions for railroad passengers, railroad employees, emergency responders, certain rescue situations, authorized crossings at private railroad crossings, and officials from INDOT, the Federal Railroad Administration, and the National Transportation Safety Board.
In practical terms, the bill strengthens property-rights enforcement for landowners, agricultural operators, research facilities, utilities, schools, railroads, and local governments dealing with vacant, abandoned, or unsafe properties. It also gives law enforcement and property owners clearer statutory tools to exclude people from sensitive or restricted areas and to prosecute unauthorized entry more aggressively when damage or repeat conduct is involved.
The overall sentiment reflected by the voting history appears strongly supportive and noncontroversial: the bill passed the Senate 49-0 and the House 90-0. No committee transcript was provided, so there is no recorded floor or committee debate in the supplied materials. Based on the unanimous votes, the bill appears to have broad bipartisan agreement.
The main points of potential contention, based on the text itself rather than recorded debate, are the expanded criminal liability for protest-like or unauthorized entry activity at agricultural operations, scientific research facilities, polling places, and locked or nonpublic areas. The purple-mark posting provision and the ability of law enforcement to bar entry to vacant or abandoned properties may also raise questions about notice, enforcement discretion, and due-process protections, though no opposition is shown in the voting record.
SB 219 amends Indiana Code section 35-43-2-2, the criminal trespass statute, by adding new categories of prohibited entry and clarifying when trespass becomes a felony. It affects property owners, agricultural operations, scientific research facilities, railroads, schools, utilities, election locations, and local enforcement authorities responsible for vacant, abandoned, or unsafe properties. The bill also creates detailed notice rules for purple-mark postings and limits when law enforcement may exclude people from certain properties, while preserving several emergency and official-duty exceptions.
The bill appears to have been received positively and passed with unanimous support in both chambers, indicating little visible partisan or procedural resistance. With no committee transcript available, there is no documented debate in the provided materials, but the voting record suggests broad consensus that the measure is a routine or broadly acceptable update to trespass law.
No formal opposition is reflected in the votes, but the text raises likely areas of concern: expanded criminal penalties for entering agricultural operations or scientific research facilities, especially where conduct causes property damage; the use of purple-mark postings as notice of denied entry; and police authority to exclude individuals from vacant, abandoned, or unsafe properties. These provisions could be viewed as strengthening property protection and public safety by supporters, while critics might see them as broadening criminal enforcement and limiting access or protest activity. The bill also touches on polling places and railroad property, areas where access restrictions can be sensitive.