Office of Governor Pence Provides Clarification Prior to Upcoming Launch of Website

Indianapolis – In the coming weeks, the State of Indiana will launch “Just IN,” a one-stop-shop news resource website that will house press releases from the Governor, Lt. Governor and the agencies they lead.

Currently, Indiana’s executive agencies send out press releases and then post them on the State of Indiana’s calendar page, found at www.in.gov/calendar. With Just IN, this process will not change. Instead, the website will offer the same service to the public and to the media, with a new, streamlined look.

Each weekday, up to six press releases will be featured in the “Top Stories” section of the website. All other press releases for the day will appear further down on the Just IN homepage, separated by category. Members of the media will continue to receive press releases via email.

The website will be overseen by a Managing Editor and Assistant Managing Editor, whose roles will be to ensure press releases are ready and available for posting on Just IN, as well as managing photo, audio and video files available to the media. They, along with members of the Governor’s communication team, will comprise the Just IN Editorial Board. The Board will be responsible for determining placement of releases on the website and fielding feedback from agencies, the public and media.

The Just IN website will also include a “Reporter Resources” section for members of the media. This area, accessible via log-in, will provide things such as executive agency head headshots, contact information for executive agency communications staff, infographics, and other handouts used in press events. In the future, the State hopes to include raw video and audio of events in the resource section.

Additional information regarding the Just IN website will be forthcoming upon its launch.

STATEHOUSE – State Representative Holli Sullivan (R-Evansville) has authored a bill to benefit taxpayers and Hoosier motorists. House Bill (HB) 1362 would extend the amount of time that Indiana is required to reissue license plates. The bill passed unanimously out of the House.

“As a state representative, it is important to look for innovative solutions that can save taxpayers both time and money,” said Rep. Sullivan. “Through this bill, I am pleased to provide an effective strategy to save the state money, which can then be passed on to the consumers.”

Currently, license plates must be issued by the state every five years. If enacted, HB 1362 could extend the life cycle of license plates by up to 10 years, which could save the state on average around $10 million per year starting in July 2016.

HB 1362 gives the Bureau of Motor Vehicles the ability to set the license plate life cycle at no less than five years, but no more than 10 years. The bill does not change the exemptions for certain plates like municipal or commercial motor vehicles.

“Indiana is below the national average when it comes to license plate reissuance,” said Rep. Sullivan. “Unfortunately, that means we lose many perfectly acceptable license plates that with our new technologies could last for more years.”

This bill will now go to the Senate for further debate and discussion.

Visit iga.in.gov for more information about HB 1362 or www.indianahouserepublicans.com for more information about Rep. Sullivan.

Dave Stafford for www.theindianalawyer.com

Divided Court of Appeals panels found Indiana’s “spice” law void for vagueness in two separate cases Tuesday.

In Christopher Tiplick v. State of Indiana, 49A04-1312-CR-617, a panel found synthetic drug statutes unconstitutional as applied to the owner of three Indianapolis Smoke Shop locations who was indicted for dealing synthetic drugs.

Christopher Tiplick was accused in an 18-count indictment of numerous felony charges including possessing and dealing synthetic drugs. Tiplick appealed a Marion Superior court’s denial of his motion to dismiss 11 counts, and a majority of a Court of Appeals panel reversed on interlocutory appeal Tuesday, dismissing those counts.

Writing Judge Melissa May and concurring Judge James Kirsch focused on the statutory scheme in which dozens of banned synthetic drugs are identified in the Indiana Code, and additional compounds may be declared a synthetic drug by pharmacy board rulemaking.

“Tiplick argues Ind. Code § 35-31.5-2-321(9) and by implication Ind. Code § 25-26-13-4.1 are void for vagueness because their “numerous cross-references, undefined terms, and required monitoring of Indiana statutes and promulgations of the Pharmacy Board cannot be understood by an ordinary person. … We agree,” May wrote.

“As Ind. Code §§ 35-48-4-10(a) and 11 form the basis for Counts (7-18), and we hold those statutes are unconstitutionally vague based on the definition of ‘synthetic drug’ set forth in Ind. Code § 35-31.5-2-321(9), the trial court erred when it denied Tiplick’s motion to dismiss those charges.”

Tiplick was indicted after he allegedly sold a synthetic drug called XLR11. The drug was not listed as a synthetic drug under I.C. §§ 35-31.5-2-321(1-8) at the time of the alleged sales, the majority held, and the pharmacy board shortly before had declared XLR11 a “synthetic substance” by emergency rule, but not a “synthetic drug.”

“While that distinction may seem trivial, we believe the technical nature of this particular statute requires precision in language. For example, the Pharmacy Board may declare a new chemical concoction used to treat a deadly disease a ‘synthetic substance’ and such a declaration would not invoke the criminal consequences as would the Pharmacy Board’s declaration of something as a ‘synthetic drug,’” May wrote.

“To require a citizen of ordinary intelligence to meticulously search through the criminal code, the administrative code, and not-yet-codified agency rules for information regarding a charge, only to be sent on a ‘Where’s Waldo’ expedition is ludicrous,” the majority held.

Dissenting Judge L. Mark Bailey took exception with that characterization.

“It seems to me that Tiplick’s void-for-vagueness challenge is more akin to an attempt to claim ignorance of the law as a defense to criminal liability,” Bailey wrote.

“Not having looked to the laws that apply to one’s actions does not excuse an individual from violating those laws. Tiplick was alleged to have engaged in the sale of a drug; he does not claim that the drug was not subject to an emergency regulation. The applicable laws and regulations are not so complex or overly broad as to preclude a person of ordinary intelligence from having fair notice of the criminal nature of the sale of XLR11 on the basis of vagueness.”

In Aadil Ashfaque v. State of Indiana, 49A02-1404-CR-286, a separate panel reached a similar conclusion, reversing a trial court’s denial of Ashfaque’s motion to dismiss Class D felony charges of dealing in a synthetic drug and possession of a synthetic drug after XLR11 was found in his vehicle after a traffic stop.

Again writing for the majority joined in this case by Judge Ezra Friedlander, May writes that Ashfaque argues the statutes “are void for vagueness because ‘[a]n ordinary person cannot be
required to follow and understand Indiana’s synthetic drug statutory maze.’ … We agree.

“The burden to meticulously weave through the labyrinth of criminal statutes, administrative code provisions, and not-yet-codified agency rules is inconsistent with the ‘process’ our Founding Fathers believed we were due before being charged with criminal offenses,” May wrote.

Court of Appeals Chief Judge Nancy Vaidik dissented in Ashfaque, aligning her dissent with Bailey’s in Tiplick.

“Because I do not believe that the statutory scheme that was in effect at the time of Ashfaque’s alleged crimes for dealing in and possession of synthetic drugs is void for vagueness, I respectfully dissent and would affirm the trial court’s denial of Ashfaque’s motion to dismiss the dealing and possession counts,” Vaidik wrote.

STATEHOUSE – State Representative Ron Bacon (R-Chandler) has authored a bill to increase medical efficiency. Tuesday, the bill was passed unanimously by the House of Representatives and will now go to the Senate for further consideration and debate.

House Bill (HB) 1157 allows qualified dieticians to order medically prescribed diets. Under current Indiana law, after a patient is evaluated by other specialists, including a dietitian, and a medically prescribed diet is deemed necessary, a doctor must fill the order.

“By allowing dieticians to order medically prescribed diets, hospitals will not only save time, but also resources,” said Rep. Bacon. “However it is important to point out that this does not just impact the hospitals. When dieticians are able to work independently of the physician, they will have the ability to enact a treatment plan in a timelier fashion and ensure expedited care for patients as well.”

A patient would still have to consult with a physician if they chose to see a dietitian outside of a hospital.

For more information on HB 1157, please visit: iga.in.gov.