New Louisiana Law Creates 25-Foot Buffer Zone Around Working Police Officers

Officers investigate the scene of a shooting in Baton Rouge, La., on Feb. 13, 2016. (Bill Feig/AP Photo)

A new Louisiana law gives on-duty police officers a 25-foot buffer zone that bystanders cannot cross.

The law, signed by Gov. Jeff Landry on May 28, makes it a misdemeanor to be within 25 feet of a police officer who is “lawfully engaged in the execution of his official duties” if said officer has “ordered the person to stop approaching or retreat.”

Offenders can face up to 60 days in prison, a fine of up to $500, or both.

In situations where a person may not hear or understand the officer’s verbal command, the law places the burden of proof on the alleged offender.

“This is part of our continued pledge to address public safety in this state,” the Republican governor said during the signing ceremony. “This was a bill that had been vetoed before, and is now going to be signed.”

The measure is authored by Republican state Rep. Bryan Fontenot, a former police deputy and firefighter. He said the new law will give law enforcement officers “a peace of mind and safe distance to do their job.”

“I think you see across America that violence on police officers continues to rise, and there was a delicate balance of finding a safe distance for police officers to be able to do their job—both for them and the person they are effecting an arrest on,” Mr. Fontenot said at the May 28 ceremony.

“We think this is a good place to fall. This is a bill that’s being enacted all across America,” he added.

First Amendment Concerns

A nearly identical bill was vetoed last year by then-Gov. John Bel Edwards, a Democrat. In his veto message, Mr. Edwards raised First Amendment concerns, saying that the proposed measure would prevent bystanders from freely observing and recording police action.

“Observations of law enforcement, whether by witnesses to an incident with officers, individuals interacting with officers, or members of the press, are invaluable in promoting transparency,” he argued.

The veto was praised by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Louisiana, which also denounced the latest police buffer law.

“The twenty-five-foot buffer legislation fundamentally seeks to curtail Louisianians’ ability to hold police accountable for violence and misconduct,” Alanah Odoms, executive director of the Louisiana ACLU, said in a statement.

“If law enforcement officers were operating in a manner that safeguarded the well-being and constitutional rights of the public, there should be no objection to being observed.”

Indiana Buffer Law Upheld

A similar law enacted last year in Indiana has faced and withstood a lawsuit challenging its constitutionality.

The challenge was filed in August 2023 by the Indiana chapter of the ACLU on behalf of Donald Nicodemus, a self-described citizen journalist who periodically livestreams police encounters, in the South Bend area of Indiana, to the public on his YouTube channel, “Freedom 2 Film.”

On July 20, 2023, South Bend police officers moved Mr. Nicodemus back from a shooting investigation in the town, referencing the newly enacted buffer law while he continued to film. In the complaint, the Indiana ACLU argued that the law violated Mr. Nicodemus’ First Amendment rights by giving police the authority to stop him from getting close enough to observe their actions, even if he “makes it a point not to, and does not” interfere with law enforcement.

“The unbridled discretion given to law enforcement officers allows for and invites content and viewpoint[-]based discrimination,” the complaint read.

U.S. District Court Judge Damon Leichty of the Northern District of Indiana disagreed. He acknowledged Mr. Nicodemus’ right to “shine a light on newsworthy police conduct” as a citizen journalist but maintained that the buffer law is constitutionally sound.

“The law isn’t directed toward speech, but encroachment. The law affords law enforcement officers the uninterrupted and unimpeded ability to do their jobs,” the Trump-appointed judge wrote in his opinion handed down in January.

Ruling in favor of the state, Judge Leichty further noted that the law safeguards the privacy of victims, arrestees, and suspects who might be endangered or embarrassed by immediate close-up recording. “They have certain privacy rights even when police may not,” he wrote. “They have First Amendment rights too that otherwise might be curtailed.”

“The law has many legitimate applications; and, on this record, any effect on speech is minimal and incidental only, particularly in this day and age of sophisticated technology in the hands of most any citizen and at a modest distance of 25 feet.”

A separate lawsuit challenging the Indiana buffer law was brought by media organizations in the Indianapolis area.