SB 492 expands Indiana’s “restricted address program” by adding two new categories of eligible participants: public safety telecommunicators and administrators for 911 emergency call dispatch centers. Under current law, certain covered persons can request that their home address be kept off a local government’s public property data base website; this bill would extend that privacy protection to these additional emergency communications personnel.
The bill amends Indiana Code 36-1-8.5-2, which defines “covered person” for purposes of address suppression on local government property databases. By broadening the definition, the bill would allow the newly added employees, and potentially household members already covered under the statute, to seek the same restricted-address treatment as judges, law enforcement officers, firefighters, public officials, and other listed groups. The effective date in the introduced version is July 1, 2025.
Impact
If enacted, SB 492 would change Indiana local government law by expanding the class of individuals eligible to keep their home address from being publicly displayed on county or municipal property databases. The practical effect would be to increase privacy and safety protections for public safety telecommunicators and 911 dispatch center administrators, who often work in emergency response roles but are not currently included in the statute’s protected categories.
Sentiment
The available bill text and context suggest a generally supportive, noncontroversial measure focused on public safety and privacy. No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no evidence of formal opposition in the materials supplied. The bill’s narrow scope and its extension of an existing protection to additional emergency personnel indicate a likely favorable reception.
Contention
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided materials. If debate were to arise, it would most likely concern whether the expanded list of protected occupations is appropriately limited, how the restriction should be administered by local governments, and whether the privacy benefit should extend to additional emergency communications staff beyond those named in the bill. However, no opposing arguments or amendments are included in the record provided.