A BILL FOR AN ACT to amend the Indiana Code concerning criminal law and procedure.
Summary
HB 1350 would substantially narrow Indiana’s exclusionary rule in criminal cases. The bill provides that evidence otherwise admissible may not be excluded merely because it was obtained in violation of the U.S. Constitution, the Indiana Constitution, or state or federal law, unless the evidence was obtained through deliberate, reckless, grossly negligent, or systemic negligence that violated the Fourth Amendment as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, and excluding it would be required by a clearly established Supreme Court holding. It also bars Indiana courts from recognizing a state-law exclusionary rule broader than the federal rule.
The bill also changes appellate procedure for suppression and exclusion rulings. It allows the state to appeal certain suppression orders, and when the state appeals an order excluding evidence under the new section, the appeal must go directly to the Indiana Supreme Court. The Supreme Court must stay trial-court proceedings while the appeal is pending and expedite review. If the state concedes that Supreme Court precedent requires exclusion but seeks to challenge that precedent in the U.S. Supreme Court, the Indiana Supreme Court must summarily affirm while preserving the stay for any certiorari petition.
HB 1350 would amend Indiana Code sections governing criminal procedure and state appeals, specifically IC 35-37-4-16 and IC 35-38-4-2. Its practical effect would be to limit suppression of evidence in criminal prosecutions, reduce the ability of defendants to invoke broader state constitutional protections, and make it easier for prosecutors to seek review of adverse suppression rulings. The bill expressly preserves the right to bring civil rights lawsuits for unlawful search and seizure, so it does not eliminate civil remedies against officers or government entities.
The overall sentiment in the available materials is neutral to pro-prosecution, since the bill is framed as restricting exclusion of evidence and strengthening the state’s ability to appeal suppression decisions. No committee testimony or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from legislators, law enforcement, defense attorneys, or civil liberties advocates in the supplied context.
The main point of contention is likely to be the balance between criminal procedure and constitutional rights. Supporters would likely view the bill as preventing guilty defendants from escaping prosecution on technical grounds and aligning Indiana more closely with federal exclusionary-rule limits. Opponents would likely argue that it weakens deterrence against unlawful searches and seizures, reduces state constitutional protections, and shifts power toward prosecutors and law enforcement at the expense of defendants’ rights.
Impact
HB 1350 would amend Indiana’s criminal procedure statutes to restrict when courts may suppress evidence and to limit any Indiana exclusionary rule beyond federal constitutional requirements. It would also alter appellate practice by routing certain suppression/exclusion appeals directly to the Indiana Supreme Court and requiring stays of trial proceedings during those appeals. The bill leaves civil rights damages actions intact, but it would likely reduce suppression-based remedies in criminal cases and affect defendants, prosecutors, law enforcement agencies, and trial courts.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to reflect a pro-law-enforcement, pro-prosecution policy approach, emphasizing admissibility of evidence and expedited appellate review for the state. Because no committee discussion or vote record was provided, there is no documented bipartisan or public sentiment in the supplied materials. The available context suggests the bill is designed to curb suppression rulings rather than expand criminal defendants’ protections.
Contention
The likely controversy centers on whether Indiana should allow broader state-law suppression remedies than the federal exclusionary rule. Supporters would argue the bill prevents exclusion of reliable evidence and limits judicial expansion of suppression doctrine; opponents would likely contend it weakens constitutional safeguards against unlawful searches and seizures and undermines deterrence of police misconduct. Another likely point of debate is the bill’s requirement that suppression appeals go directly to the Indiana Supreme Court, which could be seen as increasing prosecutorial leverage and delaying criminal proceedings.