Police Buffer Laws

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 15
  • Views: 207
nycfan

nycfan

Curator/Moderator
ZZL Supporter
Messages
8,952


"... On Thursday, a Louisiana law will go into effect that will make it a misdemeanor for anyone, including journalists, to be within 25 feet of a law enforcement officer if the officer orders them back. The two independent journalists who sued [in the case of the George Floyd protests in Baton Rouge in 2020], whose photos were used to support allegations against the police, said they wouldn’t have been able to capture those images if the law had been on the books during the protests.

... On Wednesday, a coalition of media companies representing a couple dozen Louisiana news outlets, including Verite News, filed suit against Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill, State Police Superintendent Robert Hodges and East Baton Rouge District Attorney Hillar Moore III, alleging the law violates the First Amendment.

Police buffer laws, as they are commonly known, are relatively new; Louisiana is the fourth state to enact one. Although those states already prohibit interfering with police officers, supporters say buffer laws are necessary to protect police from distrustful, aggressive bystanders. And with advances in cellphone cameras, including zoom lenses, supporters say there’s no need to get close to officers in order to record their activities. ..."
 
nycfan said:


"... On Thursday, a Louisiana law will go into effect that will make it a misdemeanor for anyone, including journalists, to be within 25 feet of a law enforcement officer if the officer orders them back. The two independent journalists who sued [in the case of the George Floyd protests in Baton Rouge in 2020], whose photos were used to support allegations against the police, said they wouldn’t have been able to capture those images if the law had been on the books during the protests.

... On Wednesday, a coalition of media companies representing a couple dozen Louisiana news outlets, including Verite News, filed suit against Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill, State Police Superintendent Robert Hodges and East Baton Rouge District Attorney Hillar Moore III, alleging the law violates the First Amendment.

Police buffer laws, as they are commonly known, are relatively new; Louisiana is the fourth state to enact one. Although those states already prohibit interfering with police officers, supporters say buffer laws are necessary to protect police from distrustful, aggressive bystanders. And with advances in cellphone cameras, including zoom lenses, supporters say there’s no need to get close to officers in order to record their activities. ..."
Click to expand...

Well they are above the Law
 
Like anything else, there does seem to be some limited middle ground here -- media ought not be able to interfere by inserting themselves between cops and a target, and so maybe some buffer is reasonable to protect the cops but also protect freedom of assembly and freedom of the press. These buffer laws seem intended to prevent things like the George Floyd murder from being caught on camera, so protecting bad actors.
 
From the Pro Publica story ...

"...
Arizona state Sen. John Kavanagh, a Republican from outside Phoenix who authored the first of these bills in 2022, wrote in an op-ed that police officers asked him to introduce it because “there are groups hostile to the police that follow them around to videotape police incidents, and they get dangerously close to potentially violent encounters.”


Kavanagh’s bill, which was signed into law by then-Gov. Doug Ducey, prohibited people from filming police within 8 feet. But federal courts across the country have affirmed the right to film the police, and a federal judge struck down the law after a coalition of media outlets and associations sued the state.

Indiana was the next state to pass a similar law. It, like the two others enacted since, doesn’t mention filming and requires people to stay at least 25 feet from police. That’s based on a controversial theory, often cited to justify police shootings, that someone armed with a knife can cover 21 feet running toward an officer before the officer can fire their weapon.

Shortly after the law was enacted in April 2023, an independent journalist sued the city of South Bend after an officer pushed him 25 feet from a crime scene and another officer ordered him to move back another 25 feet. The journalist claimed in the lawsuit that it was impossible to observe the crime scene from that distance. The state denied in court that the journalist’s rights were violated.


In January, a federal judge dismissed the journalist’s suit, stating that officers have a right to perform their jobs “unimpeded.” The judge said 25 feet is a “modest distance … particularly in this day and age of sophisticated technology” and that “any effect on speech is minimal and incidental.” That case is under appeal. ..."
 
The police can't do any wrong in the eyes of Pubs, especially when it comes to dealing with people of color.
 
25 feet from the primary cop dealing with a suspect seems somewhat reasonable, but what will undoubtedly happen is 10 cops will show up at an arrest and form a circle 25 feet around the primary cop and then tell observers that they have to be 25 feet back from them.....
 
NCK9 said:
25 feet from the primary cop dealing with a suspect seems somewhat reasonable, but what will undoubtedly happen is 10 cops will show up at an arrest and form a circle 25 feet around the primary cop and then tell observers that they have to be 25 feet back from them.....
Click to expand...
I was about to make a post agreeing with the first part of your post, but I hadn’t thought of the second.
 
It sucks these laws are needed. I’m generally okay with it, but it’s obvious folks are harassing police. otoh, it’s also obvious police go beyond the line. These laws should also include stipulations that police must have functioning body cameras with audio, tested throughout the day, and videos need to be made available within some reasonable time frame.
 
ronjon said:
It sucks these laws are needed. I’m generally okay with it, but it’s obvious folks are harassing police. otoh, it’s also obvious police go beyond the line. These laws should also include stipulations that police must have functioning body cameras with audio, tested throughout the day, and videos need to be made available within some reasonable time frame.
Click to expand...
Police are big boys with guns and near total immunity A little videoing is not a problem to me-as you said if they are afraid of some teenager with a camera-they should turn their own on
 
ronjon said:
It sucks these laws are needed. I’m generally okay with it, but it’s obvious folks are harassing police. otoh, it’s also obvious police go beyond the line. These laws should also include stipulations that police must have functioning body cameras with audio, tested throughout the day, and videos need to be made available within some reasonable time frame.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's clear that these laws are needed. It is likely already against the law most places to interfere with officers making an arrest. Laws like this go too far in the other direction by chilling any media from covering police and giving police wide discretion to be able to arrest journalists who are simply trying to make a record of what the police are doing.

Are there really any clear examples of police being endangered because journalists are standing too close while filming them?
 
Given the anti police sentiment on these boards alone, much less the streets, sounds like it's needed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top