Indiana law creating 25-foot 'buffer zone' around police unconstitutional by federal court
"The decision should throw cold water on enthusiasm for these new police bubble laws across the country," said Grayson Clary, a staff attorney at the Reporters' Committee for Freedom of the Press.
The 2023 buffer zone law has been challenged for potential violations of the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech and the press, and the Fourteenth Amendment, which requires due process and equal protection under the law. The Aug. 5 ruling was based solely on the latter.
The court stated that the law is susceptible to discriminatory or arbitrary enforcement and would grant police discretion to make arbitrary arrests.
Police could "subject any pedestrian to potential criminal liability by simply ordering them not to approach, even if the pedestrian is doing nothing more than taking a morning stroll or merely walking up to an officer to ask for directions," wrote Judge Doris Pryor, who was appointed to the Seventh Circuit court by then-President Joe Biden in 2022.
Lawyers representing the state's case in favor of the statute conceded that officers could tell people to stop approaching for no reason, including a made-up reason or a "bad breakfast."
That reasoning will not stand "no matter how bitter the coffee or soggy the scrambled eggs," Pryor wrote.
The buffer zone law's enforcement had been on hold since September 2024 when a federal judge presiding over a lawsuit filed by a coalition of Indiana media organizations, including IndyStar, ruled that the law was too vague to be enforced fairly.
Additional proceedings will take place to determine whether the law is permanently blocked for all Indiana residents or only the parties named in the lawsuit. A June 2025 U.S. Supreme Court ruling sharply limited federal courts' ability to issue injunctions that affect people other than the parties in a particular lawsuit.
In practice, because the Seventh Circuit has already made clear that the law is unconstitutional on its face, it would be deeply challenging for the state to enforce it, Clary said.
The law was established in April 2023 by House Bill 1186, which made it a Class C misdemeanor offense for anyone who comes within 25 feet of an on-duty officer after being asked to stop.
In a separate ruling in May, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the law, as written, does not violate the First Amendment. No decision was made as to whether the law would violate freedom of the press in practice.
Media coalitions' cases challenging similar police buffer laws in Louisiana and Tennessee remain pending.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
3 hours ago
- The Hill
DNC chair moving to limit corporate and dark money spending in primaries
Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin is set to introduce a resolution to party members this month that moves to limit corporate and dark money spending in primaries, according to a draft obtained by The Hill on Tuesday. The resolution states that the 'only way' to solve the 'problem' of the flow of unlimited corporate money and dark money into elections is through 'congressional action,' including a 'constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.' The 2010 Supreme Court decision ruled that limits on independent expenditures by corporations, unions and other groups in federal elections violated the First Amendment right to free speech. If passed, the resolution would direct the DNC Committee on Reforms to 'identify and study…real, enforceable steps the DNC can take to eliminate unlimited corporate and dark money in its 2028 presidential primary process.' Additionally, the Reforms Committee would be tasked with establishing 'a specific set of necessary legislative actions that the DNC should endorse as a body to present to congressional leaders.' 'As Democrats fight to win back the branches of government, the DNC must take immediate steps to demonstrate our Party's commitment to this issue and show that we will 'walk the walk' at every opportunity,' the resolution states. 2024 Election Coverage The resolution is boon for the progressive wing of the party, which has long called for campaign finance reform. The progressive group Our Revolution, which formed out of Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-Vt.) 2016 presidential ban, formally backed the resolution on Tuesday. 'This resolution is a crucial step to ensure the Democratic presidential nominee is chosen by everyday people—not deep-pocketed donors and the special interests they serve. We urge every DNC member to rise to the moment, back this fight, and put power back where it belongs—in the hands of voters, not the billionaires,' the group's executive director Joseph Geevarghese said in a statement.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Marcia Wilbur is running for mayor in Norwich as a petitioning candidate: What is that?
If you're a Norwich voter who is tired of Democrat and Republican tickets, you may soon have another option for mayor. Marcia Wilbur filed petitioning paperwork and got her petitioning form from the Connecticut Secretary of State's office on June 30, and submitted her signatures on Aug 5. Wilbur is waiting on confirmation, but she intends to run as a petitioning candidate for Norwich Mayor in this year's election. A petitioning candidate is an unendorsed candidate collects enough signatures from the public in their town to run for office. The petitioning candidate needs to collect a number signatures equal to 1% of the total number of participating voters in the prior election, according to the Connecticut Secretary of State's Office. Wilbur was told she needed 50 signatures, and got over 60 when she filed the collected signatures, she said. Why is Wilbur running for mayor? While a friend of Wilbur's first urged her to run for mayor about 25 years ago, Wilbur's multiple attempts to bring to Norwich a makerspace, which is a shared workshop featuring a wide range of materials and technologies, motivated her to run for mayor, she said. 'I noticed there isn't a lot of tech here,' she said. Wilbur also found herself in conversations about blight, and the controversy around Former Norwich Superintendent Kristen Stringfellow. Wilbur acknowledges that her opponents, Swarnjit Singh (D) and Stacy Gould (R), have experience and some good ideas, but they need better implementation, she said. Wilbur's background Wilbur has been in tech since attending Arizona State University and later Three Rivers Community College, graduating in 2000. She's worked as a technical writer, tech consultant, and developer for many companies. Wilbur did some volunteer work while studying at the Berkman Klein Center for & Society at Harvard University, for the MPAA vs 2600 case, and met Peter Junger, the lawyer known for Junger v. Daley, which resulted in source code being protected under the First Amendment. Wilbur was also an early advocate for open-source software. She's also an advocate for free speech, online privacy and security, and new technologies like AI, Wilbur said. Through this background in tech, Wilbur hopes to talk to tech businesses to bring them to Norwich to help with the tax burden. The city has plenty of smart individuals but lacks the means to train them for the tech industry, and the ability to keep tech companies in town, she said. 'There's not even really a place for techies to hang out,' Wilbur. What are Wilbur's positions? Wilbur wants to support education, including reading, math and tech. Within the city government, Wilbur wants to make services more efficient and possibly to offer services to other towns for revenue sources. Wilbur is weary about the high number of non-profits in Norwich. While some, like SCADD, own property but do not pay taxes, others are closely associated with City Councilmembers. One example is Shiela Hayes, who is a board vice chair for Sankofa Education and Leadership, Inc., Wilbur said. 'I don't understand the big push on non-profits here,' she said. 'They help, but at the same time, they're also cutting into the tax base.' Wilbur also wants Norwich to be an appealing living option for people who work remote jobs, improve accessibility for people with physical disabilities, and support tiny homes as a possible solution for housing needs. Getting the signatures When Wilbur got her petition signatures, she told people that she's a conservative and registered Republican. Despite this positioning, Wilbur said she received some support from Democrats who want something new for the city, she said. 'People are just ready for a change,' Wilbur said. 'Let's see if they'll come out to vote.' While Wilbur is confident she has a good understanding of local issues, she's still eager to meet and greet with the public through the campaign, she said. If Wilbur wins, she'll have no problem working with Democrats or Republicans, as long as there's reasonable discourse and reasonable decisions, she said This article originally appeared on The Bulletin: Why is Marcia Wilbur a petitioning candidate for Norwich Mayor? Solve the daily Crossword
Indianapolis Star
16 hours ago
- Indianapolis Star
Why 17-year-olds are exempt from new Indy youth curfew passed after mass shooting
Indianapolis officials have made the youth curfew two hours earlier for all children younger than 17 for at least the rest of this year. About a month after a July 5 mass shooting left two teenagers dead, the Indianapolis City-County Council voted Aug. 11 to make the youth curfew stricter effective immediately. An initial proposal that included 17-year-olds was amended at the last minute by Democratic councilors who felt that older teens should be granted more independence. The new rules mean that children ages 15 and 16 won't be allowed in public unsupervised past 11 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays and past 9 p.m. Sundays through Thursdays. Children under 15 will face a 9 p.m. curfew every day. The city's emergency curfew will remain in place for 120 days, which means the council must decide in early December whether to extend or relax the policy. Teens who are 17 will still be subject to the state curfew of 1 a.m. on Fridays and Saturdays and 11 p.m. on Sundays through Thursdays. The 25-person council's Democratic majority passed the amendment that excluded 17-year-olds from the new curfew despite the opposition of all six Republican councilors. "The sun doesn't even go down in the summer until near 10 p.m., and I don't think we're putting ourselves in a good position pushing 17-year-olds to break curfew at 10-10:30 p.m.," said Councilor Jared Evans, who introduced the amendment at Monday's council meeting. Republicans like Councilor Joshua Bain said that excluding 17-year-olds from the new policy weakens the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department's efforts to keep people safe. "It is not the goal of IMPD to go around arresting every 17-year-old that's out at night," Bain said. "This is a targeted way for them to get in between a 17-year-old that's about to make a really bad decision and possibly ruin the rest of their life." The ordinance doesn't create a criminal offense for children who break curfew, but it does grant police the authority to detain them. The policy carves out several exceptions for kids who are returning home from work, a school activity, a religious event or activities protected by the First Amendment such as political protests, among others. IMPD Chief Christopher Bailey said he was unbothered by the change exempting 17-year-olds from a stricter curfew. (He mentioned in jest that his daughter, who is nearly 17 and has been criticizing her father at home over the new curfew, would be "very pleased.") "My direction to the officers is not some sweep of everyone that's out," Bailey said. "It's really behavioral-based." Democratic Councilor Dan Boots spoke bluntly in support of more leniency for 17-year-olds. "Seventeen-year-olds are rising seniors in high school, a step away from being able to vote and be drafted and killed for our country," Boots said. "I think they have a right to stay out past 9 to go to a movie and come back." Republican Councilor Michael-Paul Hart, who also voted against the last-minute change, introduced a new proposal Monday night that would fine parents whose children violate curfew. State law allows the city to impose thousands of dollars in fines, according to city attorney Brandon Beeler, but it's unclear how harshly violators would be prosecuted. Hart's proposal would give parents one written warning for a first violation, followed by a $500 fine for a second time and a $1,500 fine for each subsequent occurrence. Councilors will consider the proposal in committee later this month before a likely vote in September. The harsher curfew change comes after hundreds of unsupervised teens lingered downtown in the hours following the Fourth of July fireworks show, culminating in a mass shooting after midnight that killed Xavion Jackson, 16, and Azareaon S. Cole, 15. Two other teens and three adults were also injured. Four teenagers ranging from 13 to 17 years old have been charged in connection with the shooting for illegally carrying guns.
