Environment
No direct effect
Neutral — no direct effect identified.
Benefits
- No material direct effect identified.
Risks
- No material direct effect identified.
StateIndianaEnacted
SB 246: Redaction of court records.
Aaron Freeman
SB 246 status: Enacted — Signed by the Governor (updated Mar 5, 2026).
Source
OpenStates
Confidence
Low
Analysis basis
OpenStates summary
01
What this bill does
Official summary alongside an AI-generated read on where it stands and why.
Overall Score
70OUT OF 100
Score:70/100 civic fit
Risk:Low Risk
Impact:Moderate Impact 40/100
Constitutionality90%
Bipartisan90%
Public opinion85%
Bill summary
Requires the names and specified other information of child victims, child witnesses, and certain other persons to be redacted in criminal actions. Requires the use of an anonymous designator such as "Child Witness No. 1" when redacting a name, and prohibits redaction that uses the person's initials or that describes the person in terms of a family relationship.
02
Impact analysis
✦ AI analysisModeled effects across six domains, estimated from bill text and comparable legislation.
Economy
Mixed / Neutral
45%
Benefits
- Reduces litigation risk related to data exposure
- Standardizes record-keeping procedures across courts
- Increases efficiency in meeting privacy compliance
Risks
- Increased administrative labor for court staff
- Potential costs for updating court record-management software
- Training costs for legal and judicial personnel
Society
Positive outlook
85%
Benefits
- Protects safety and privacy of child victims
- Prevents child re-victimization via public records
- Reduces social stigma for child witnesses
Risks
- Potential for public confusion regarding case identities
- Increased difficulty for families navigating anonymized records
- Loss of contextual data for longitudinal social research
Technology Industry
No direct effect
Neutral — no direct effect identified.
Benefits
- No material direct effect identified.
Risks
- No material direct effect identified.
Civic Accountability
Positive outlook
70%
Benefits
- Formalizes standards for sensitive information redaction
- Limits unnecessary public disclosure of personal data
- Enhances privacy protections within the judicial system
Risks
- Limits transparency of court specifics to the public
- Potential inconsistencies in applying redaction criteria
- Difficulty for journalists in monitoring court proceedings
Public Health & Safety
Positive outlook
80%
Benefits
- Directly mitigates risks of victim intimidation
- Protects vulnerable minors from public harassment
- Supports integrity of testimony in criminal actions
Risks
- Potential for redaction to mask patterns of repeat abuse
- Risk of record misidentification due to strict anonymity
- Increased clerical workload potentially slowing administrative safety tasks
03
How trustworthy & consequential it is
Sourcing already shown above, this is what the analysis found worth flagging.
Source
OpenStates
Official bill text or data from OpenStates.
Confidence
Low
Information is limited or incomplete.
Analysis basis
OpenStates summary
Source used for this bill's analysis.
Source note
LegiScan returned a PDF-only document. PDF extraction is not enabled in this build, so the pipeline used a safer fallback.
Analysis scope
Analysis based on abstract only; lacks full legislative text.
04
Where it stands
Official recordSigned by the Governor
- IntroducedComplete
- CommitteeComplete
- Chamber votesComplete
- Final agreementComplete
- GovernorComplete
- EnactedComplete
05
How it affects your district
✦ Personalized
Set your location
Add your district to see how this bill may affect your community and who to contact.
Your Representatives
Your representatives appear here once you add your location.
06
Take action
Contact your representatives
Let them know how you feel about this bill.
Share your view
Join the discussion and see what others are saying.
Track this bill
Stay updated on progress and changes.