Indiana Law Lets Cops Push Bystanders Back 25 Feet. A New Lawsuit Says It's Unconstitutional.
The law makes it harder to record and observe police activity.

An Indiana law makes it a crime for individuals to approach within 25 feet of a police officer if ordered by that officer to back away. However, on Tuesday, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit challenging the law, arguing that it infringes upon individuals' First Amendment right to record and observe police.
In March, the state legislature passed a law making it a misdemeanor to "knowingly or intentionally [approach] within twenty-five (25) feet of a law enforcement officer lawfully engaged in the execution of the law enforcement officer's duties after the law enforcement officer has ordered the person to stop."
"Our public safety officers have important work to do, and their jobs often involve dangerous and unpredictable situations," Rep. Wendy McNamara (R–Evansville) said in a February press release. "The goal of this bill is to give officers another tool to help control a scene to maintain their safety and the public's safety."
The problem, according to the ACLU, is that the law allows police to effectively prevent journalists and other bystanders from recording their activity—or even watching them in action. For example, Donald Nicodemus, the plaintiff, says that he was prevented from filming police during an investigation of a shooting. The suit also alleges police failed to properly enforce the law, and that they instructed Nicodemus to back up over 50 feet.
"There was no basis for forcing Mr. Nicodemus to move even further back from the area—fully across the street—where police [were] conducting their activities. However, Mr. Nicodemus complied as he had been threatened with arrest."
"The unbridled discretion given to law enforcement officers by [the law] allows for and invites content and viewpoint-based discrimination," the complaint continues, concluding that the law "violates the First Amendment as it gives police officers unbridled discretion to prohibit citizens from approaching within 25 feet of the officers to observe their actions, even if the actions of the citizens are not and will not interfere with the police."
Lawsuits challenging similar laws have succeeded before. For example, an Arizona law that would have banned filming within 8 feet of a police officer was blocked by a federal judge last year.
"Arizona already has other laws on its books to prevent interference with police officers," wrote Judge John J. Tuchi in a preliminary injunction, adding that if the goal "is to prevent interference with law enforcement activities, the Court fails to see how the presence of a person recording a video near an officer interferes with the officer's activities."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
If they have nothing to hide - - - - - - - - - -
I'm making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning sixteen thousand US dollars a month by working on the connection, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by just using this website... http://www.Payathome7.com
This is a very, very special breaking news story=============> https://iplogger.com/123w
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,700 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,700 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link———————————————>>> http://Www.OnlineCash1.Com
Ever heard of “zoom”?
25 feet is reasonable.
One needs to be within 25 feet to observe police? Is there any distance that police can restrict a "journalist" from going inside so as not impede the officers going about their duties?
One needs to be within 25 feet to observe police?
If one needs to read an ID, yes, one needs to be within 25′.
If only the ACLU was accepting more reasonable bounds like 8 feet but they're not so why give them credence.
Not to mention, as has been pointed out before, a good portion of the people involved give precisely zero shits as to whether they or the police are violating anyone's rights.
Do you even realize how dangerous it is for police when someone decides to resist arrest?
When gawkers get too close police perceive multiple threats. The situation is dynamic.
You think you’re entitled to increase the danger for everyone involved so you can gawk from your home in the safety provided by police.
You think that’s your right eh?
In March, the state legislature passed a law making it a misdemeanor to “knowingly or intentionally [approach] within twenty-five (25) feet of a law enforcement officer lawfully engaged in the execution of the law enforcement officer’s duties after the law enforcement officer has ordered the person to stop.”
What if the law enforcement officer is unlawfully engaged in the execution of someone who offended their ego?
Police officers just need to flail about with their nightsticks and if it hits somebody, that's too close.
Doesn't this law make entering donut shops a legal landmine?
https://twitter.com/pepesgrandma/status/1689315584578658316?t=Jh9Tfo_6lr7nv3LwEIsuSQ&s=19
Breaking! A new and less redacted document shows the targeting of Catholics by the FBI was much larger than Wray said! It wasn’t just the single Richmond office, it included Portland and Los Angeles too.
The report says that its information on Catholics was “primarily derived” from an “FBI Richmond contact”; an “FBI Portland liaison contact” who informed on a subject who “gravitated to” traditionalist catholicism; and an “FBI Undercover Employee” who reported on a subject who attended a Catholic church in California.
It also says the FBI’s Los Angeles field office “initiated an investigation” into a subject, and that the Richmond office “coordinated with” FBI Portland to prepare the field report.
In other words, this was a widespread bureau effort. Why was this suspicion about religion so widespread at the FBI?
[Link]
https://twitter.com/LeadingReport/status/1688926561461051393?t=11DcYn1OFDoet02sQ1DZQg&s=19
BREAKING: Michigan police find tens of thousands of fake voter registrations, bags of pre-paid gift cards, guns with silencers, burner phones, and a democrat-funded organization with multiple temporary facilities in several states in a massive 2020 voter fraud bust.
I tweeted at the reporter at Detroit news that’s covering the prosecution of the alternative electors yesterday to ask him his opinion of the report. He hasn’t responded.
This "story" is made up. It did not happen.
https://twitter.com/extradeadjcb/status/1689284830708604928?t=60-pZ5dxPDgCW2bwCBVpeQ&s=19
Very hard to understand why stories get coverage if you compare them by death toll or financial cost or cultural impact - no obvious pattern
Ask whether talking about it would advance or hinder the cause of global race communism
[Link]
Apparently since police these days, are being told to stay at least 25 feet away from any shoplifter, they believe people should do the same for them.
https://twitter.com/greg_price11/status/1689096840606605313?t=L7lUfi6-LYNVBVW88kcGPA&s=19
.@MrAndyNgo was viciously attacked on camera, yet he sued his attackers and lost.
The judge said that antifa were trying to dox jurors, the lawyer for the other side declared “I am Antifa” and told the jurors she’d remember their faces.
Fully crazy.
https://twitter.com/KatieDaviscourt/status/1689107270309920769?t=JREu6qwXUhmrcZgf_CEk2w&s=19
BREAKING: After I left the courthouse where I was reporting on @MrAndyNgo’s trial against Antifa, I found that my car was broken into by my hotel.
The windows were busted out, items were stolen, and personal identification documents were taken—I’m obviously upset.
the lawyer for the other side declared “I am Antifa” and told the jurors she’d remember their faces.
And was immediately jailed for contempt of court and jury intimidation. Right?
Haha!
I suspect you know the attorney in question was not sanctioned by the court.
https://twitter.com/DefiyantlyFree/status/1689157754227691521?t=D-b9JfL45j2eTD0YMD-Qow&s=19
The FBI destroyed cell phones during the Mueller investigation.
Hilary Clinton destroyed all her classified state emails from her personal server while it was under a criminal federal subpoena.
The White House secret service can’t find any footage of how cocaine got in there.
And now the J6 committee tells us they do not have any records of their illegitimate and staged investigation that had a budget for TV producers.
Yet somehow Donald Trump is under indictment. He deleted nothing. He didn’t keep classified documents in CCP funded think tanks, or in his unlocked car, he didn’t get 10 million dollars from Ukrainian oligarchs for energy policy changes and he didn’t hide anything having to do with 1/6 like Pelosi, the capital police and the FBI.
Yet he has been indicted 3 times with number 4 coming shortly.
Again totally normal stuff.
In Stalin’s Russia.
mooove along nothin' ta see, folks ...
https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1689322912891772951?t=Cr4JKWL0FYbc2BuCxvuCPw&s=19
NEW - X/Twitter fined $350K as DOJ wants access to Trump's account.
[Link]
https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1688976315373039616?t=r1zSqwa1xn4tKlbzq8WJSA&s=19
Woman screams for help as her bike is stolen in broad daylight. A bunch of people stand around watching. Nobody moves.
Welcome to California
[Video]
This response explains it perfectly:
BKactual
@BravoKiloActual
·
Aug 8
I’m in CA. And I’m not getting involved by choking out a black man (I’m white,) having it all caught on camera, and then sitting in jail while online activists destroy my life.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1634336094664916992?t=EbY97eBv1fLfSwp_3vUclQ&s=19
Chansley got 4 years in prison for a non-violent, police-escorted tour!?
Dave Chapelle was violently assaulted on stage by a guy with a knife. That guy got a $3000 fine & no prison time.
[Link]
https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1689312586423050249?t=WuxeDlwTQbp2NsX68VamNA&s=19
JUST IN - U.S. State Dept "encouraged" the Pakistani govt to remove Imran Khan as PM over his neutrality on the Russian invasion of Ukraine, according to a classified document obtained by The Intercept.
Stop filming us abusing you... it hurts our feelings.
https://twitter.com/CassyWearsHeels/status/1689280504263036929?t=AyWK4RDfto9wwYjelDiZvQ&s=19
THIS is how you stop the looters!
[Video]
For sound economic perspective go to https://honesteconomics.substack.com/
The focus on bad, unconstitutional laws is not efficient use of time, energy. We should "attack the root" of the problem, authoritarian law makers. The recall or a few would make all stop & think before they act like tyrants. Moreover, the election, the creation of rulers, creates the ruled, i.e., masters/servants. Do you fear yourself, your freedom to self-govern, that you would self-enslave? Or, would you rather live in a free country, with voluntary social interactions, policed locally by people accountable to each immediately? A society with "justice for all" NOT the present one with "immunity for authorities", not for you?
It is questionable whether this law is, in fact, "unconstitutional". It certainly is not unconstitutional under the original US Constitution. It only became "unconstitutional" after the passage of the 14A and after SCOTUS expanded the meaning of the 14A more than half a century later by creating the incorporation doctrine.
Apart from the rather tenuous connection of this law to the 1A in the first place, let's remember that for most of America's history, the 1A didn't even apply to the states. It was only incorporated in the 20th century under a novel, progressive reading of the 14A.
To be precise, the 1st amendment is the ONLY amendment in the Bill of Rights that didn't apply to ALL levels of government when first adopted. The 1st amendment states that Congress shall make no law ... The term Congress is used in the Constitution to refer to the Federal legislature. All the other amendments in the Bill of rights state that certain rights shall not be violated, but don't state who is not permitted to violate them. Because the 1st 10 amendments, and 2 more that were not ratified at the time, were all written by the 1st Congress in the same session, it should be assumed that the differing language was intentional on their part.
Also note: One reason the rights spelled out in the Bill of rights was not included in the original language of the Constitution was that the drafters were concerned that listing right RETAINED by the people would be interpreted as denying rights not included on the list, hence the 10th amendment.
That is incorrect. The 1A explicitly mentions Congress, but the entire BoR was understood to apply only to the federal government. That's why every part of it had to be incorporated by court decisions individually, and parts of it still aren't.
OTOH, the 14th Amendment was written to incorporate the entire Bill of Rights and more in state as well as federal law, with the "Privileges and Immunities" clause. Chief Justice Taney had helpfully listed those in 1857.
But when you looked at it that way, it clearly gave blacks the same rights as whites, including even the right to keep and bear arms. Armed "Negroes" were unacceptable to racist judges, so they pretended they didn't know what "Privileges and Immunities" meant and nullified that clause.
Cops have plenty to hide these days and they are determined not to let that pesky constitution get in the way of their covering up their crimes.
The other issue with this Indiana law and the Arizona law is that it does NOT require staying ‘x’ feet back from where cops are making an arrest or something, but ‘x’ feet from ANY cop that’s telling you to get back. If they called out enough cops, they can form a chain of cops spaced ‘x’ feet apart until they’ve pushed you over the horizon.