Indiana's 25-foot buffer zone law challenged in court

[AK9R]

A Indiana law into effect in 2023 that established a 25-foot "buffer zone" around police doing their lawful duties.

That law has been challenged in court and it looks like a Federal judge will be overturning it.

"A federal judge late Friday blocked a law creating a 25-foot buffer zone around law enforcement officers during certain activities.

U.S. District Court Judge James Sweeney II, of the southern district, ruled in favor of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and a coalition of other Hoosier journalism organizations and media outlets."

Federal judge blocks police buffer zone law in media lawsuit

A federal judge late Friday blocked a law creating a 25-foot buffer zone around law enforcement officers during certain activities.

www.wfyi.org

 

[scannerboy02]

Arizona passed a similar law that was also struck down by the courts.

The Supreme Court has noted many times that the public has a right under the First Amendment to document police activity occurring in the public right of way and any attempt to imped that right is unlawful.

 

[west-pac]

A Indiana law into effect in 2023 that established a 25-foot "buffer zone" around police doing their lawful duties.

That law has been challenged in court and it looks like a Federal judge will be overturning it.

"A federal judge late Friday blocked a law creating a 25-foot buffer zone around law enforcement officers during certain activities.

U.S. District Court Judge James Sweeney II, of the southern district, ruled in favor of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and a coalition of other Hoosier journalism organizations and media outlets."

Federal judge blocks police buffer zone law in media lawsuit

A federal judge late Friday blocked a law creating a 25-foot buffer zone around law enforcement officers during certain activities.

www.wfyi.org

What does this post have to do with Radio Reference and the Scanning hobby?

 

[vagrant]

It’s a song by the police. Don’t scan so, don’t scan so, don’t scan so close to me.

 

[AK9R]

What does this post have to do with Radio Reference and the Scanning hobby?

There are folks who equate encryption of law enforcement frequencies/talkgroups with law enforcement attempting to hide what they are doing. Here we have a law that was passed to keep members of the public from interfering with ongoing police activity. And, a Federal judge is saying "your law is vague and infringes with the public's right to view police activities". Some might jump to the conclusion that a Federal judge blocking that law could lead to legal action preventing encryption.

I, personally, think the encryption boat has sailed. I don't expect the legislature or the courts to prohibit encryption. But, if you have a judge who thinks the public has a right to know what the police are doing, some might see that as a crack in the dam.

To answer your question: nothing really.

 

[scannerboy02]

What does this post have to do with Radio Reference and the Scanning hobby?

This law originated from a "concern" over officer safety involving people who were listening to radio traffic and responding to incident locations to record the police activity occurring at those locations. This is what some would refer to as journalism but the police referred to it as a safety issue so they got this law passed. They wanted to make it illegal to record the police period but the legislators made it a 25 foot buffer because it's absolutely legal to record the police and that can not be outlawed. What the courts are now saying is that any attempt to imped the recording of the police in any way is unlawful. As long as the photographer is not truly interfering in the officers duty (we already have laws for this) it can not be prohibited.

If you truly think about it this is also why the police are encrypting radio traffic. It has become a thing for people to monitor radio traffic and respond to the scene to record what's happening. This is one way that the public can become active in their government, the mainstream media has been doing this since the beginning. With advances in technology now just about anyone can commit acts of journalism which results in people being exposed to more information about what the police are doing and the police don't like that so they are taking steps to prevent it.

 

[west-pac]

This law originated from a "concern" over officer safety involving people who were listening to radio traffic and responding to incident locations to record the police activity occurring at those locations. This is what some would refer to as journalism but the police referred to it as a safety issue so they got this law passed. They wanted to make it illegal to record the police period but the legislators made it a 25 foot buffer because it's absolutely legal to record the police and that can not be outlawed. What the courts are now saying is that any attempt to imped the recording of the police in any way is unlawful. As long as the photographer is not truly interfering in the officers duty (we already have laws for this) it can not be prohibited.

If you truly think about it this is also why the police are encrypting radio traffic. It has become a thing for people to monitor radio traffic and respond to the scene to record what's happening. This is one way that the public can become active in their government, the mainstream media has been doing this since the beginning. With advances in technology now just about anyone can commit acts of journalism which results in people being exposed to more information about what the police are doing and the police don't like that so they are taking steps to prevent it.

I don't believe it had anything to do with people responding to the scene to record the police. It had everything to do with bystanders getting in the way, but nothing to do with journalism.

 

[scannerboy02]

I don't believe it had anything to do with people responding to the scene to record the police. It had everything to do with bystanders getting in the way, but nothing to do with journalism.

And as the court said, we already have laws for this.

Just like we already have laws (in many municipalities) for using a 'scanner' in the commission of a crime.

 

[prcguy]

The buffer zone around law enforcement while arresting someone does not need to be specified. People just need to be aware it will be however long the wires are on a Tazer gun.

 

[scannerboy02]

The buffer zone around law enforcement while arresting someone does not need to be specified. People just need to be aware it will be however long the wires are on a Tazer gun.

Now that's funny, and will make people money.

 

[AK9R]

The buffer zone around law enforcement while arresting someone does not need to be specified. People just need to be aware it will be however long the wires are on a Tazer gun.

Kinda like the Union Pacific Steam Program's rule about staying back 25 feet from one of their steam engines. People usually back away, quickly, when the crew opens the drain cocks on the cylinders and a jet of steam shoots out 25, or more, feet.