A bill allowing the Indiana governor to deploy a “military police force” of the Indiana National Guard throughout the state advanced out of the House Wednesday amid heated debate, but legal experts are worried that, if signed into law, it could put the Guard into situations they’re not trained to handle.
House Bill 1343, authored by State Rep. Steve Bartels, allows the Indiana National Guard’s leader, the adjutant general, to establish a “military police force” that could make arrests, conduct searches and seizures, carry firearms and exercise other police powers. All members must have security clearance and no felony convictions. Anyone appointed to the military police force has to complete army or air military police occupational training, according to the bill.
The governor would be able to deploy the military police force “to exercise police powers throughout Indiana” during times of war, disaster or “at any other time the governor considers necessary.” The governor would have to provide reasonable notice to local law enforcement agencies in the area, according to the bill.
Bartels, R-Eckerty, said the military police force will merge six different units that exist within the Indiana National Guard.
If a governor chose to send the military police force into a community, the mayor there wouldn’t have a way to stop the action, Bartels said. The bill also doesn’t give a timeframe for how long the military police force could be deployed, he said.
“I think this is very proactive. I think it helps us deal with situations that are unpredictable. It’s probably past due, in my opinion,” Bartels said.
The bill’s supporters said Wednesday that the National Guard would help local law enforcement, Indiana University law professor Jody Madeira said, but National Guard members don’t receive the same training as law enforcement because they are military members and not police. National Guard members are also people who have other jobs and responsibilities in the community, she added.
“They are not full-time soldiers,” Madeira said. “They might get limited law enforcement training, and then these people will be given guns and put in law enforcement situations and not given real, robust de-escalation training. Then they might be put into some of the same situations that these immigration authorities are in, like what we’re seeing in Minneapolis.”
An amendment was introduced to give more local control with the military police force, but it failed, Madeira said. She worries about the consequences of the governor having unchecked power to call on the National Guard.
Legislators who supported the bill claimed it’s needed for situations like the Boston Marathon bombing of 2013 where the Massachusetts National Guard was deployed but couldn’t play a law enforcement role in the investigation.
State Rep. Matt Lehman, R-Berne, said the bill models what Massachusetts did with its national guard authority following the Boston Marathon bombing.
“This is crisis mode,” Lehman said.
State Rep. Matt Pierce, D-Bloomington, countered that the Boston Marathon was 13 years ago, and no governor in that time has mentioned that the state should update its national guard protocols.
“And now suddenly it shows up in this short session buried in a bill about veterans affairs,” Pierce said.
Madeira said she agrees that .anguage of a military police force is hidden in the bill.
“One of the things that’s unique about this bill is that it has a whole lot of stuff in it,” she said. “It starts out by talking about watercraft, and it also ends by saying you can’t bring an imitation firearm on a school bus.”
Madeira doesn’t understand why representatives used the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing as an example on the House floor.
“Why now?” Madeira said. “That situation has been studied. If those were the lessons that were meant to be applied, why are we doing so virtually decades later? … We would not always need a state paramilitary police force for that purpose.”
Legislators opposed to the bill voiced concern about a governor misusing the military police force without requests from local officials to limit Hoosier free speech.
“Granting a governor, any governor, power over military police in this way at this moment in our country’s history feels foolish at best and dangerous at worst,” said State Rep. Carey Hamilton, D-Indianapolis, pointing to the recent shooting of Alex Pretti by federal agents in Minneapolis.
State Rep. Vernon Smith, D-Gary, said he had concerns about the bill giving one person authority over deploying a paramilitary police force in Indiana.
“As a Black man, I understand firsthand the tragedies that can occur when interacting with law enforcement. But I am not just concerned about myself with this provision, I’m worried about all Hoosiers. I do not want our state to become a military state where fear spreads throughout,” Smith said.
State Rep. Earl Harris, D-East Chicago, said he has a lot of “discomfort” around the bill because it takes away local control.
“The mayor, council, town, whatever, were elected by the people that live there to make those decisions. And to take that ability away, and to give it to a governor who could then decide, “I’m going to have them stay for as long as I want,” Harris said. “We don’t need to bring this into Indiana.”
Lehman denied that the bill changes local control when it comes to the Indiana National Guard.
“The governor today could send in the national guard without talking to the mayor,” Lehman said. “This enhances trust because now the people coming to defend this are going to be trained and have the authority to do what they’re going to do.”
State Rep. Chuck Moseley, D-Portage, said he has “very serious concerns” about deploying a military police force under the circumstances outlined in the bill.
“I really would wish and hope that we could be cautious and move very carefully on this moving forward,” Moseley said.
The bill passed the House 67-29, with State Rep. Danny Lopez, R-Carmel, voting with all Democrats present against the bill. It moves forward for consideration by the Senate.
Currently, Louisiana, California and Nebraska each allow the governor to call on the National Guard to act as military police, but the states have different provisions, Madeira said. According to Louisiana law, when the governor calls up members of the National Guard and Louisiana Military Police, they have the power and authority of peace officers, including arrests, searches, seizures, and executing warrants, unless limited by orders.
In California, members of the National Guard have peace officer powers when called into active service by the governor and are assisting authorities in an area where military assistance is required, according to state law.
Nebraska law says that while in active service of the state, or at the direction of the governor, National Guard members are peace officers with power to prevent crime, arrest suspects, and execute the process of law. The governor can limit that authority in writing, according to Nebraska law.
“What’s kind of interesting is that Indiana is much more forthright,” Madeira said. “Basically, this means Indiana is sort of the only state that would create this military police force. Other states just say they have these powers, but Indiana would create a military police force.”
As House Bill 1343 moves into the Senate, Madeira believes that legislators need to consider adding a check to the governor’s powers.
It would be a good idea for General Assembly to consider how increased local input could help the state make the best decisions in potentially dangerous situations, she added.
“Local police know the community, they know the people, and in many cases, they have the trust of the people,” Madeira said. “If we just come riding in with a cavalry from out of town, we risk more danger. … These lessons are very expensive, not only in terms of dollars but also in terms of lives lost.”