A federal judge has barred Louisiana officials from enforcing a new law that creates a no-approach zone around police officers whenever officers tell citizens to back off.
Judge John deGravelles of the Middle District of Louisiana handed down the ruling on House Bill 173, concluding that the law is “unconstitutionally void for vagueness in violation of the 14th Amendment.” The decision was seen as a win for news media companies that challenged the law, which makes it a crime for people to be within 25 feet of on-duty law-enforcement officers if officers order them to stop approaching or retreat.
The news media companies, including Verite News, Scripps Media Inc., Gray Local Media and Gannett Co., argued that the law unconstitutionally impeded their ability to gather and report news about crime investigations and other police activities. State Attorney General Liz Murrill and Louisiana State Police Superintendent Robert Hodges opposed the injunction and urged dismissal of the plaintiff’s lawsuit.
“It is not a crime to stand within 25 feet of a police officer, and yet the act gives an officer unfettered and standardless discretion to make it a crime merely by ordering retreat even when there is no conduct that justifies such an order,” deGravelles’ Jan. 31 opinion states. “The requirement that the officer must be engaged in his official duties to issue an order similarly does not save the act from vagueness since the same limitless discretion is vested in the officer regardless of what particular activity he is engaged in at the time he gives the order, be it sitting at a desk, walking the beat or engaged in hot pursuit.”
The vagueness of the statute allows officers to order reporters and members of the public to step back simply because they don’t want to be recorded – an action that represents an unacceptable limit on reporters’ First Amendment rights, according to the opinion.
“The public is not put on notice or given any warning about what activity, if any, they must be engaged in when they may be subject to such an order,” deGravelles said.
Despite the judge’s finding that the plaintiffs, who were represented by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, were largely correct in their arguments against the law, Murrill said Friday that the statue was a reasonable measure to safeguard police officers.
“I haven’t read the opinion yet, but we will continue to defend the law,” she said in a statement emailed to the Louisiana Record. “We think it is a reasonable time, place and manner restriction from obstructing and interfering with working police. We are trying to protect the public.”
The Reporters Committee, however, noted that the Louisiana opinion mirrored a similar recent court decision in Indiana, which found that state’s law creating police buffer zones was unconstitutionally vague.
“Laws like this, which bar reporters and the public from getting close enough to document police officers’ public duties, are clearly unconstitutional, and we’re glad the court blocked this statute’s enforcement,” Reporters Committee Staff Attorney Grayson Clary said in a prepared statement. “This ruling will help ensure that journalists can continue to inform communities across the state about their public servants.”
The Reporters Committee called such laws overly broad because they give officers authority to disperse people even when someone is not interfering with law enforcement or creating a safety risk.
Gov. Jeff Landry signed the law in May of last year. It contains no carve-out for the First Amendment right to report on public agencies’ activities and no direction to officers on when a retreat order is appropriate.