SB 437 expands Indiana’s definition of “critical infrastructure facility” for purposes of criminal law. The bill amends IC 35-46-10-1 to specify that a communications services facility includes not only central offices, cable head ends, cable nodes, and cellular tower sites, but also the wires and equipment used to provide communications service to a customer. The rest of the statute continues to list other protected infrastructure such as utilities, fuel terminals, transportation facilities, dams, pipelines, and certain regulated industrial sites.
The bill is narrow in scope and does not create a new offense; instead, it clarifies and broadens the set of facilities covered by existing critical infrastructure criminal statutes. By adding customer-facing communications wiring and equipment to the definition, the bill would extend criminal-law protections to more of the communications network and potentially increase the range of property or conduct that could trigger penalties under the critical infrastructure chapter. The effective date is July 1, 2025.
Impact
SB 437 would amend IC 35-46-10-1, the Indiana Code section defining “critical infrastructure facility” and “critical infrastructure utility” for criminal-law purposes. The practical effect is to broaden the protected category for communications infrastructure, which could affect prosecutions involving trespass, damage, interference, or other offenses tied to critical infrastructure sites and equipment. Communications providers, utilities, and law enforcement would be the primary affected parties, while the bill leaves the broader structure of the critical infrastructure statute intact.
Sentiment
Based on the available record, the bill appears to have been introduced as a technical or clarifying measure with no recorded committee debate, amendments, or votes in the provided materials. The absence of recorded opposition or support suggests the proposal was not yet the subject of visible controversy in the available context. Overall sentiment cannot be strongly inferred, but the bill’s narrow definitional change suggests a generally pragmatic, security-oriented purpose.
Contention
The main point of potential contention is the expansion of criminal-law protections to communications service wiring and equipment used to serve customers, which could be viewed as either a necessary modernization of infrastructure protections or an overbroad extension of criminal liability. Stakeholders most likely to care include communications companies, property owners, and criminal-justice advocates concerned about the scope of “critical infrastructure” designations. No specific objections or competing viewpoints are documented in the provided transcripts or vote history.