A BILL FOR AN ACT to amend the Indiana Code concerning criminal law and procedure.
Summary
HB 1123 creates a new chapter in the Indiana Code to restrict how law enforcement may conduct prostitution-related investigations beginning July 1, 2026. It prohibits a law enforcement agency from authorizing the use of public funds for an officer to pay for or engage in sexual intercourse, other sexual conduct, or genital fondling as part of investigations into prostitution, making an unlawful proposition, or promoting prostitution as a Level 5 felony. The bill expressly excludes investigations of human and sexual trafficking from this funding prohibition.
The bill also creates a new criminal offense, “unlawful sexual conduct by a law enforcement officer,” as a Level 5 felony. A law enforcement officer commits the offense if, under specified law-enforcement-related circumstances, the officer knowingly or intentionally engages in sexual intercourse or other sexual conduct, causes or agrees to genital fondling, or fondles another person’s genitals. The offense applies when the conduct occurs during an encounter tied to law-enforcement duties, when the officer uses knowledge of an active investigation to further the conduct, or when the officer uses real or apparent law-enforcement authority to facilitate it. Consent is not a defense, and there is a narrow exception for conduct incident to a lawful search.
In terms of state law, the bill adds a new chapter to Title 5 governing public money in prostitution investigations and adds a new criminal section in Title 35. It also updates the statutory definition of “law enforcement officer” for related criminal provisions, while leaving existing definitions in place for other contexts. The practical effect is to limit undercover tactics in certain vice investigations and to create explicit felony liability for officers who exploit their authority in sexual encounters connected to their official duties.
The overall sentiment reflected by the bill text is strongly regulatory and protective, aiming to curb abuse of police power and public funds in prostitution stings. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no documented floor or committee debate to indicate broader legislative support or opposition. The structure of the bill suggests a focus on accountability and boundaries for undercover policing, especially where sexual conduct is involved.
The main point of contention likely concerns the balance between investigative techniques and limits on officer conduct. Supporters would likely emphasize preventing misconduct, misuse of taxpayer funds, and coercive sexual exploitation by officers. Potential critics may argue that the restrictions could constrain undercover prostitution investigations, though the bill preserves an exception for human and sexual trafficking cases and for conduct incident to a lawful search.
Impact
HB 1123 would amend Indiana criminal law by adding a new prohibition on the use of public funds for sexual conduct in certain prostitution-related investigations and by creating a new Level 5 felony for unlawful sexual conduct by a law enforcement officer. It would affect law enforcement agencies, officers, and prosecutors by imposing new limits on undercover operations and by providing a specific criminal charge for sexual acts tied to an officer’s official duties. The bill also makes a targeted definition change to the term “law enforcement officer” for related statutes.
Sentiment
The bill’s tone is generally punitive toward misconduct and protective of the public, suggesting a policy goal of preventing abuse of authority and taxpayer-funded sexual conduct in investigations. With no committee testimony or voting record provided, there is no direct evidence of partisan or procedural opposition in the available materials. The bill appears designed to address a perceived gap in accountability rather than to expand investigative authority.
Contention
The likely controversy is whether the bill unduly restricts undercover prostitution enforcement while trying to prevent officer misconduct. Supporters would likely favor the clear ban on public funding for sexual conduct and the new felony offense as necessary safeguards. Opponents, if any, would likely focus on operational concerns for law enforcement, especially around undercover tactics, though the bill preserves an exception for human and sexual trafficking investigations and for lawful searches.