Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Child Exploitation Csam topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears overhaul of child-exploitation statutes amid rising ICAC caseloads; some question penalty increases
Summary
House Bill 13-03 would restructure Indiana's child-exploitation statutes to separate possession, distribution and production, align some penalties with federal law, and extend discovery protections to civil proceedings. The Indiana ICAC presented sharp year-over-year increases in tips, arrests, and rescued children; public defenders urged caution about enhanced penalties.
The Senate Corrections and Criminal Law Committee considered House Bill 13-03, a measure to restructure Indiana's child-exploitation statutes by separating manufacturing/production, distribution and possession into distinct offenses, creating a standalone possession section, and adding aligned sentence enhancements.
Lieutenant Chris Cecil, commander of the Indiana ICAC task force, told the committee that tips and caseloads have surged: the state received 18,183 cyber tips in 2024 and 29,635 in 2025, arrests rose from 411 in 2024 to 499 in 2025, and rescues increased from 48 to 126. "The volume of cyber tips submitted... has increased by 1200% over the last decade," Cecil said, arguing statutory restructuring would give investigators clearer charging options.
A victim advocate, Grace Shegler of Fort Wayne, described being exploited online at age 13 and urged passage. "I was just 13 years old when I experienced online exploitation... Because of my experience, I created Shine a Light," she said, urging lawmakers to support stronger criminal accountability.
Michael Moore of the Indiana Public Defender counsel praised the bill for clarifying offenses but opposed added penalty enhancements without evidence that they are an effective deterrent, saying prosecutors and defense systems already face resource strains.
Sponsors said some penalties were amended in the House to better align with federal law and that the bill would remove duplicative language and expand discovery restrictions for CSAM to civil cases. The committee did not vote on the bill during the hearing and left it for further work and potential amendments.
