Bill
HB 1025
Prohibits counties from mandating residency for deputy prosecutors and public defenders within only the county; allowed if residency covers the county and all contiguous counties (
Status & sponsors
- Bill number: HB 1025
- Title: Residency of prosecutors and public defenders
- Sponsors/authors: Representatives Zimmerman; McNamara (coauthor noted)
- Procedural posture (as provided): First reading; referred to Committee on Courts and Criminal Code.
- Effective date specified in bill text: Upon passage (emergency declared).
Purpose / intent
- To limit county-level residency requirements for certain county criminal justice attorneys so that deputy prosecuting attorneys and public defenders are not forced to live only in the county that employs them. The goal is to ease geographic restrictions on employment for these positions (e.g., improve recruitment/retention and allow commuting from neighboring counties).
Key provisions
- Adds a new section to the Indiana Code (IC 36‑1‑3‑15.6) with two primary rules:
- A deputy prosecuting attorney and a public defender may not be subject to a county residency requirement — unless the residency rule requires residence in the county plus all counties contiguous to that county. In other words, a county cannot require these employees to live solely within that single county; a requirement that covers the county and every adjacent county is allowed.
- The provision explicitly does not apply to a chief public defender (i.e., chiefs may still be subject to county residency requirements).
- The act contains an emergency clause so its provisions take effect immediately upon enactment.
Who is affected
- Directly affected: deputy prosecuting attorneys and public defenders employed by counties in the state (excluding chief public defenders).
- Indirectly affected: county governments and boards that adopt or enforce employee residency requirements; potential applicants for deputy prosecutor/public defender positions who live in neighboring counties; local workforce and public-safety staffing dynamics.
Potential impacts / considerations
- Recruitment & retention: could broaden the hiring pool by allowing candidates who live in adjacent counties to accept positions without relocating.
- Local policy: reduces counties’ ability to require in‑county residence for these roles, while preserving broader (county + all contiguous counties) residency requirements.
- Administrative/legal: may require county personnel policies to be revised to comply; courts could be asked to interpret the statute if ambiguous.
- Fiscal: the bill itself does not create direct expenditures; effects would be administrative/policy-level for counties.
Next steps / timeline
- As of the information provided, HB 1025 has had its first reading and awaits committee consideration (Committee on Courts and Criminal Code). Because the bill declares an emergency and is effective upon passage, if enacted it would take effect immediately.
Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.
Sign in to ask a question.
