An Indiana based Federal Court has recently struck down an Indiana statute designed to keep the public and press at least 25 feet away from police officers at a crime scene. The Court concluded that the law was "void for vagueness." It also concluded that other Indiana statutes adequately protected police from interference with their duties. For these reasons, the Court found the law unconstitutional.
On April 20, 2023, Indiana Governor Eric Holcomb signed into law HB 1186, which makes it a criminal offense to "knowingly or intentionally approach[] within twenty-five (25) feet of a law enforcement officer lawfully engaged in the execution of the law enforcement officer's duties after the law enforcement officer has ordered the person to stop approaching." The Act went into effect on July 1, 2023. Since that time, Indiana police have on a number of occasions enforced the law against members of the public for attempting to film the police.
A coalition of journalists filed a lawsuit challenging the law, and asked for preliminary injunction to prohibit enforcement of the law while the case proceeded. Late last month, the court granted the preliminary injunction.
In moving for the injunction, the coalition argued that the law was impossibly vague. In their view, the law provides no "warning about the behavior that [can] prompt[] a lawful dispersal order," and is also "so standardless that it authorizes or encourages seriously discriminatory enforcement." The coalition also argued that the law "fail[s] to provide the kind of notice that will enable ordinary people to understand what conduct it prohibits." On that point, the coalition contended that "[the law] authorizes officers to order an individual to withdraw for any reason (or no reason). As such, it is impossible for reporters to know how to conduct themselves to avoid receiving an order to move." In other words, the law could vary from incident to incident and, maybe worse, from cop to cop. That may be okay for a pass interference penalty, but not for a criminal statute.
The coalition also argued that the law "likewise fails to provide fair notice and an opportunity to comply because reporters cannot workably determine whether they are within twenty-five feet of law enforcement, especially when gathering news at a crowded, fast evolving public event." I am sympathetic to this argument because I am clueless when it comes to estimating distance, even when I'm not distracted. So, imagine a reporter at a riot, trying to dodge projectiles calculating the distance from the nearest police officer. It's not workable.
The Court was sympathetic to these arguments, and also noted that Indiana already had laws in place to address obstructing official business. In its view, there was no compelling need for the buffer law.
The most troubling thing about the buffer law was the mindset of its sponsor, Representative Wendy McNamara, who said the bill was necessary to address "the public . . . increasingly getting more and more involved in a situation"—how law enforcement officers perform their official duties—"that's really none of their business." With due respect Representative McNamara, how the police conduct themselves is exactly the public's business. And she has no business trying to shield that from the public.
