Lawmakers attempt to fix police buffer zone law
A bill to revamp a buffer zone law for law enforcement passed out of committee 10-3 Wednesday.
The original law, passed in 2023, allows police to push citizens back 25 feet from an ongoing investigation.
It was challenged in two separate lawsuits; the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued an injunction blocking the law because it was unconstitutionally vague. That case was brought by a coalition of media outlets.
Rep. Wendy McNamara, R-Evansville, is carrying House Bill 1122 to try to eliminate the vagueness.
The new law would allow an officer to order someone to stop approaching if there is a reasonable belief that the person's presence within the 25 feet will interfere with police duties.
Chris Daley, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, believes the change would allow reporters or other witnesses to unobtrusively record what is happening without that being considered interference.
He was neutral on the bill — saying it is an improvement on the previous law, but the legal cases are still ongoing. Daley still thinks the 25-foot distance is too far.
Evansville Police Sgt. Mark Saltzman testified in support of the bill, saying it has helped reduce intrusion on officers conducting an investigation at a time when assaults on police officers have risen nationally.
He noted that other states have used Indiana's language to pass their own laws, including Florida's 'Halo law.'
Plainfield Police Chief Kyle Prewitt said, 'We want safety in our communities, not just for our law enforcement officers, but for those who are impacted by crimes, those who commit crimes, the community as a whole.'
He added that sometimes people standing too close can also overhear sensitive information relayed by officers, victims and suspects.
'There's also a modicum of decency that we should be observing as society as a whole,' Prewitt said.
Three Democrats opposed the bill with all Republicans in support.
Rep. Robin Shackleford, D-Indianapolis, said she initially supported the law in committee but then received pushback from her community. She said many of her constituents don't trust law enforcement and 25 feet is too far to 'make sure everyone is accountable.'
Lawmakers heard concerns about witness recordings in an interim committee in 2022 and in committee discussion in 2023.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
8 minutes ago
- The Hill
House Democrat: Trump ‘militarization' of cities ‘violates everything that we believe in'
Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) on Wednesday denounced President Trump's 'militarization' of cities such as Los Angeles and Washington, claiming it 'violates everything that we believe in.' MSNBC's Alicia Menendez asked Goldman if GOP lawmakers are as 'unanimously in favor' of Trump's federal takeover of the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) as the president seemingly believes. 'I would really, really hope not, because the militarization of our cities and our domestic law enforcement violates the Posse Comitatus law and violates everything that we believe in [as] Americans,' Goldman responded. 'But just as I thought there would be Republicans who would stand up for their constituents and prevent them from losing health care, prevent them from losing food benefits, prevent million — billions of dollars of offshore wind investment in their own districts, I thought they would stand up for their own districts, and they didn't,' the New York Democrat told 'The Weeknight' host, referring to provisions included in the massive spending and tax bill signed into law last month. Trump earlier this week deployed National Guard troops to the nation's capital and declared a crime emergency in the district, giving the administration temporary authority to take control over the local police force under the city's Home Rule Act. The president on Wednesday told reporters that he will seek 'long-term extensions' from Congress to lengthen the initiative. Democrats, from local officials to members of the House and Senate, have decried the move as 'unnecessary' and ' unlawful,' as data shows the crime rate shrinking. He also ordered National Guard troops and some U.S. Marines to go to Los Angeles earlier this year when protests spread throughout the city — and beyond — in opposition to the White House's robust immigration agenda, including an uptick in detainments and deportations by U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
The Hill
8 minutes ago
- The Hill
Democrats warn Cantor Fitzgerald about tariff-related trades; note firm's link to Lutnick
Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Banking Committee Ranking Member Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) have warned Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., financial services firm linked to Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, that its tariff-related trades pose a potential conflict of interest. Wyden and Warren ask in their letter to Brandon Lutnick, the CEO of Cantor Fitzgerald, LP, and Secretary Lutnick's son, for details on its work on tariff refund agreements and whether anyone at the firm has communicated with President Trump, Secretary Lutnick or other Trump administration officials. The Democrats are raising the alarm over financial products created by Cantor Fitzgerald that would allow clients to hedge against business risks posed by the uncertainty over whether the Supreme Court will ultimately uphold Trump's sweeping reciprocal tariffs against major foreign trading partners. 'Specifically, Cantor has created a 'litigation finance' product that places the company in the position of betting that courts will strike down Trump's tariffs. Given that one of the purported architects of President Trump's tariff policy is Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, your father and former Chairman and CEO of Cantor Fitzgerald, LP, the firm's actions raise obvious conflict-of-interest and insider dealing concerns,' they wrote. The Democrats raised the issue after Wired reported last month that Cantor Fitzgerald's investment banking arm was exploring the creation of a financial product for clients to bet on the legal outcome of Trump's tariffs. If the courts declare Trump's tariffs, which the president says are authorized under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), companies that paid tariffs would likely be entitled to large refunds from the U.S. government. Cantor has reportedly offered companies an opportunity to trade their legal claim to a future tariff refund in exchange for twenty to thirty percent of the duties the company paid, Wyden and Warren noted. If the courts strike down the tariffs, Wyden and Warren say, Cantor could reap a financial windfall. 'Cantor has reportedly already made a deal with at least one company for its refund rights, valued at approximately $10 million and 'anticipate[s] that number will balloon in the coming weeks.' A Cantor representative reportedly said the firm has, 'the capacity to trade up to several hundred million of these presently and can likely upsize that in the future to meet potential demand,'' they wrote. 'This financial product effectively represents a bet that President Trump's tariffs will ultimately be declared unlawful by the Supreme Court,' they argued. Wyden and Warren are asking Brandon Lutnick to describe the scope of this activity and any contact Cantor employees have had with the Trump administration. They want to know how many tariff refund agreements have been drafted and how many have been finalized and how many different counterparties are involved with these agreements. They want information on whether Cantor created the tariff refund agreements at the request of a specific client or whether it originated the idea. 'We are concerned about the negative impacts of these tariffs and seek additional information regarding efforts by Cantor to profit from them,' they wrote. A spokesperson for Cantor Fitzgerald did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Boston Globe
8 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Social Security has existed for 90 years. Why it may be more threatened than ever.
Just as it has for decades, Social Security faces a looming shortfall in money to pay full benefits. Since President Trump took office the program has faced more tumult. Agency staffing has been slashed. Unions and advocacy groups concerned about sharing sensitive information have sued. Trump administration officials including the president for months falsely claimed millions of dead people were receiving Social Security benefits. Former top adviser Elon Musk called the program a potential 'Ponzi scheme.' Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Trump and other Republicans have said they will not cut Social Security benefits. Yet the program remains far from the sound economic system that FDR envisioned 90 years ago, due to changes made — and not made — under both Democratic and Republican presidents. Advertisement Here's a look at past and current challenges to Social Security, the proposed solutions and what it could take to shore up the program. The go-broke date has been moved up The so-called go-broke date — or the date at which Social Security will no longer have enough funds to pay full benefits — has been moved up to 2034, instead of last year's estimate of 2035. After that point, Social Security would only be able to pay 81% of benefits, according to an annual report released in June. The earlier date came as new legislation affecting Social Security benefits have contributed to earlier projected depletion dates, the report concluded. Advertisement The Social Security Fairness Act, signed into law by former President Joe Biden and enacted in January, had an impact. It repealed the Windfall Elimination and Government Pension Offset provisions, increasing Social Security benefit levels for former public workers. Republicans' new tax legislation signed into law in July will accelerate the insolvency of Social Security, said Brendan Duke at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. 'They haven't laid out an idea to fix it yet,' he said. The privatization conversation has been revived The notion of privatizing Social Security surfaced most recently when Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent this month said new tax-deferred investment accounts dubbed " Trump accounts " may serve as a " backdoor to privatization," though Treasury has walked back those comments. The public has been widely against the idea of privatizing Social Security since former President George W. Bush embarked on a campaign to pitch privatization of the program in 2005, through voluntary personal retirement accounts. The plan was not well-received by the public. Glenn Hubbard, a Columbia University professor and top economist in Bush's White House, told The Associated Press that Social Security needs to be reduced in size in order to maintain benefits for generations to come. He supports limiting benefits for wealthy retirees. 'We will have to make a choice,' Hubbard said. 'If you want Social Security benefits to look like they are today, we're going to have to raise everyone's taxes a lot. And if that's what people want, that's a menu, and you pay the high price and you move on.' Advertisement Another option would be to increase minimum benefits and slow down benefit growth for everyone else, which Hubbard said would right the ship without requiring big tax increases, if it's done over time. 'It's really a political choice,' he said, adding 'Neither one of those is pain free.' Nancy Altman, president of Social Security Works, an advocacy group for the preservation of Social Security benefits, is more worried that the administration of benefits could be privatized under Trump, rather than a move toward privatized accounts. The agency cut more than 7,000 from its workforce this year as part of the Department of Government Efficiency's effort to reduce the size of the government. Martin O'Malley, who was Social Security agency commissioner under Biden, said he thinks the problems go deeper. 'There is no openness and there is no transparency' at the agency, he said. 'And we hear about field offices teetering on the brink of collapse.' A Social Security Administration representative didn't respond to a request for comment. Concerns persist An Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll conducted in April found that an increasing share of older Americans — particularly Democrats — support the program but aren't confident the benefit will be available to them when they retire. 'So much of what we hear is that its running out of money,' said Becky Boober, 70, from Rockport, Maine, who recently retired after decades in public service. She relies on Social Security to keep her finances afloat, is grateful for the program and thinks it should be expanded. 'In my mind there are several easy fixes that are not a political stretch,' she said. They include raising the income tax cap on high-income earners and possibly raising the retirement age, which is currently 67 for people born after 1960, though she is less inclined to support that change. Advertisement Some call for shrinking the program Rachel Greszler is a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, the group behind the Project 2025 blueprint for Trump's second term. It called for an increase in the retirement age. Greszler says Social Security no longer serves its intended purpose of being a social safety net for low-income seniors and is far too large. She supports pursuing privatization, which includes allowing retirees to put their Social Security taxes into a personal investment account. She also argues for shrinking the program to a point where every retiree would receive the same Social Security benefit so long as they worked the same number of years, which she argues would increase benefits for the bottom one-third of earners. How this would impact middle-class earners is unclear. 'When talking about needing to reform the system, we need to reform it so that we don't have indiscriminate 23% across the board cuts for everybody,' Greszler said. 'We need to reform the system in a more thoughtful way, so that we are protecting those who are most vulnerable and reliant on Social Security.'
