1 week Ago
Shielding public-safety personnel from impediments to performing their duty, or infringing on the public’s right to observe — up close — how these public servants conduct themselves? That’s the two sides of an argument generated by a bill that would set certain parameters on how everyday citizens keep tabs on first responders in this state. Two state lawmakers have proposed a new law that would create a 25-foot buffer zone around the recording of EMTs, firefighters, and police in the line of duty. Those taking videos of first responders would receive a verbal warning and be required to step back 25 feet, or face a fine of up to $1,000 — or even jail time.
The Massachusetts law would mirror one enacted in Florida last year. Sponsors of this bill say they view the measure as an additional tool to keep first responders — especially police — safe while in tense situations. “Just like a speed limit is to deter speeding, red lights keep people from violating intersections; that’s all the Halo Act is; it’s an additional deterrent to protect first responders,” state Rep.
Richard Wells Jr., one of the sponsors, told NBC10 Boston. The first-term Milton Democrat previously served for 32 years in the Milton Police Department, the final nine years as its chief.
The other sponsor, Republican state Rep. Steven Xiarhos of Barnstable, says he often sees videos of citizens yelling at and insulting first responders, and he hopes this bill will discourage that type of interaction as well. Like Wells, Xiarhos has an extensive background in law enforcement.
A 40-year veteran of the Yarmouth Police Department, Xiarhos rose through the ranks to become the department’s deputy chief before his retirement in 2019. Two state senators, Republican Ryan Fattman of Sutton and Democrat Michael Moore of Millbury, also have signed on as co-sponsors. As with the two primary sponsors, Moore served in law enforcement for more than two decades before beginning his political career.
While the legislation’s supporters contend it’s purely a measure to keep first responders safe, opponents worry that it could erode First Amendment rights. Many believe that the recent uptick in filming first responders, especially police officers, has led to more accountability in these professions. Supporters have obviously taken law enforcement’s position in advancing this bill.
However, critics, who probably don’t believe that everyone the Halo Act would protect are necessarily angels, would argue that such a law sets unreasonable limits on the right to document officers’ interactions with the public. The proposal comes amid what police say has been a rise in confrontations with so-called First Amendment auditors, who record and post often antagonistic exchanges with public officials as examples of free speech rights. “It’s a fine line when someone is right up in the officer’s face, not necessarily touching or getting in between them and the person they’re talking to, but making it difficult to do their job,” Thomas Fowler, Salisbury’s police chief and chair of the legislative committee for Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association, told The Boston Globe.
“And then there’s a fine line about their right to videotape, which they have. But where does it cross the line?” For First Amendment advocates, the bill goes too far. Attorneys said the measure would make it substantially more difficult for the media and others to record police, which, in some instances, has provided crucial evidence of misconduct.
They would contend that the cellphone video showing Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin pressing a knee into George Floyd’s neck in May 2020 played a key role in Chauvin’s conviction and 21-year prison sentence for his role in Floyd’s death. This instance of extreme police brutality generated heightened scrutiny and calls for increased oversight. Supporters say the bill doesn’t seek to bar someone from recording police, but rather would help de-escalate potentially dangerous situations.
While it’s true that individuals who interfere with police can already face arrest on other charges, “there can be some gray area” in how police choose to apply the current law, Michael Bradley, executive director of the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association, told the Globe. “Is it interference? Is it disorderly conduct? Is it a breach of the peace?” he said. “This [bill] spells it out more clearly.
Here is the warning to let us do our job. And if people choose to ignore that, we have a statute that we can point to.” Even though it’s ostensibly gained bipartisan support, acceptance of this bill by the full Legislature is no sure thing.
Its Democrat and Republican sponsors in the House come from law enforcement, as do one of its two Senate co-signers. And federal judges in Indiana and Louisiana — two Red states — have blocked similar 25-foot police buffer zones on First Amendment concerns. If police and the public always acted responsibly, there would be no need for this type of legislation.
But in the real world, often under intense, traumatic circumstances, one or the other can cross the line. Nobody wants anyone looking over their shoulder, ready to critique your job performance, but that’s the work environment in which police find themselves. A law specifically designed to defuse confrontations while still protecting the public’s right to know — and record — seems like a reasonable compromise.
.
