Louisiana's New 25-Foot Legal Forcefield for Police Threatens Accountability and Civil Liberties
A new law will make it much harder to film law enforcement officers in their public duties. Does that violate the First Amendment?

Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry last week signed a law that criminalizes approaching police officers within 25 feet, provided that the officer tells any would-be approachers to stand back, effectively creating a legal force field that law enforcement can activate at their discretion.
"No person shall knowingly or intentionally approach within twenty-five feet of a peace officer who is lawfully engaged in the execution of his official duties after the peace officer has ordered the person to stop approaching or to retreat," the law states. Offenders could receive a $500 fine and be jailed for up to 60 days.
The bill was authored by state Reps. Bryan Fontenot (R–Thibodaux), Michael T. Johnson (R–Pineville), and Roger Wilder (R–Denham Springs). Fontenot argued that the legislation would give law enforcement officials "peace of mind" as they carry out their duties. That's the same argument Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis made to justify signing Senate Bill 184 in April, which criminalizes approaching within 25 feet of a first responder with the intent to threaten, harass, or interfere with the official.
But some opponents of these laws believe they are overly broad and unnecessary.
"Requiring a 25-foot distance from a police officer may not be a practical or effective approach in many situations," state Rep. Delisha Boyd (D–New Orleans) tells Reason. "Policing situations vary widely, and a blanket requirement for a 25-foot distance may not account for the diverse scenarios officers encounter. Who on the scene will determine what exactly is 25 feet away? What happens if within that 25 feet is on my personal property?"
Louisiana already has a law outlawing "interfering with a law enforcement investigation." Critics of the new law say that an additional law proscribing the simple act of approaching police is superfluous.
One such critic is Meghan Garvey, the legislative chair and former president of the Louisiana Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. Police work "is already protected from interference by current law," she tells Reason. "The measure criminalizes citizens for engaging in constitutionally protected activity and discourages citizen oversight of law enforcement."
The law, "like many other bills brought this session, seeks to make Louisianans more subservient to government," Garvey concludes.
The Louisiana Legislature passed a similar bill, House Bill 85, in June 2023, but that measure was vetoed by former Gov. John Bel Edwards. "The effect of this bill were it to become law would be to chill exercise of First Amendment rights and prevent bystanders from observing and recording police action," Edwards said in a statement explaining his veto.
Though the Supreme Court has declined to address the issue, there is significant legal precedent in the circuit courts—including in the 5th Circuit, which contains Louisiana—that the First Amendment's press and speech clauses collectively safeguard a "right to record the police." Last year, a federal judge struck down an Arizona measure that outlawed filming police from within 8 feet after receiving a verbal warning because it "prohibits or chills a substantial amount of First Amendment protected activity and is unnecessary to prevent interference with police officers given other Arizona laws in effect."
In Louisiana, "an officer could be arresting someone in a manner indicating excessive force, have a bystander approach to record the arrest, and the bystander could then be immediately told by the officer 'to stop approaching or to retreat,' chilling the bystander's right to record," Louisiana attorney Philip Adams tells Reason. "Thus, the bystander could be placed in a position in which the First Amendment right to record could be functionally neutered."
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
How many phones do NOT have a zoom feature?
For sure!
Who walks up to a police beatdown to get a close up?
Quietly, unobtrusively, zoom in and get the evidence I say.
That way you don’t need someone else to record you being told to Stop Resisting.
The police need a safe working distance to control difficult arrests without threat of additional interference. That will de-escalate adrenaline.
Also, this law will recognize the public right to record what they witness. With more people recording from different angles, police will have much more difficulty lying. Deep fakes will be easier to identify.
In all, a good law.
Obviously, a bad law. You've got it completely backwards.
What’s backwards?
The police needing a safe working distance or a law recognizing the right to record police?
All of it is backwards. Throughout the US, the police have tried to prevent people from recording them. They have even seized recordings on the scene, but after the fact, when space and safety concerns were no longer relevant, based on "preserving evidence" rationalizations. The courts have ruled against the police many times on the basis that recording the police is a first amendment right. The current law is an attempt to circumvent those rulings, not to protect the police or the right to record them.
Without a legal distance to record in law, the police use their discretion.
Agree. I’m not a police lover but I’m also not a police hater. They need room to do their job without interference from bystanders. You can still record their actions all you want, which I agree with.
"Without interference from bystanders" is one or maybe two arms' length pretty much everywhere else. What makes cops in FL and LA so fragile that they need 25 feet?
“ is one or maybe two arms’ length pretty much everywhere else. ”
Your cite for that law is required.
No? I didn’t think you could.
Without a legal distance to record in law, the police use their discretion.
One or two arms' length? Are you high? Why does an uninvolved bystander need to be within 3 feet to film? You don't need to be within 1 or even 2 car lengths to film. One arms' length, you're in the action, and no longer a bystander.
At 25 ft. I would expect a fairly average human being to be able to differentiate a dime from a nickel from a quarter and put a 9mm projectile on the dime with their naked eye and relatively off-the-shelf equipment.
If filming police beyond 25 ft. is “much harder” then my teen who umps little league games with 60 ft. baselines must have the reflexes of a cat and the visual acuity of an eagle and pro-sports across 50 or 100 yds. must be virtually impossible to capture.
How many phones DO have a boom mike? Video alone is not the answer to police accountability. Audio helps a lot.
Even ignoring audio, though, zoom is not a magic answer. Phones don't "zoom" in the way that traditional cameras do. They imitate zooming by recording only a smaller field of view but they have the same number of pixels recording the target whether zoomed or not. In other words, you could get the same "zoomed" view by expanding the original picture after the fact. And as everyone knows, there's a limit to how much detail you can get. A mechanical zoom with moving lenses solves that. The cell phone's zoom emulator does not.
Even ignoring audio, though, zoom is not a magic answer. Phones don’t “zoom” in the way that traditional cameras do. They imitate zooming by recording only a smaller field of view but they have the same number of pixels recording the target whether zoomed or not. In other words, you could get the same “zoomed” view by expanding the original picture after the fact. And as everyone knows, there’s a limit to how much detail you can get. A mechanical zoom with moving lenses solves that. The cell phone’s zoom emulator does not.
This is, depending on the phone, half true. In context, only a quarter true, at best.
The majority of modern phones have multiple image sensors with multiple lenses. In more textbook terms, you’re talking about enlarging or magnifying vs. resolving. You are correct that you can’t resolve any further than the lens and the number of pixels *for a single image from a single camera* but, with multiple lenses and multiple pixels and multiple frames you can interpolate better than you can with either lens/sensor setup. A feature not possible with conventional optics. You can capture both finer detail *and* capture a higher depth of field *and* a greater field of view, which brings me to the second point.
You say zoom isn’t the only answer and even bring up audio and this isn’t wrong but it’s a bit of bullshitting. At 25 ft. you’re talking about bullshit details that are largely speculation in the larger context. Maybe you can’t capture a clear pic of a dime-sized faded tattoo at 25 ft., but the lens that can capture the tattoo isn’t going to be able to capture it in motion and is going to miss lots of other stuff. Further, unless the crime committed by the officers is tattoo misidentification, someone’s just going to take the stands and say “Yeah, that’s me.” or “Yeah, that’s Ofc. CantReadATattoo in the picture.”, something they can’t do if your photo lens only depicts a photo of a dime-sized tattoo.
Bottom line, if your case against the cops rests on (e.g.) 4K resolution vs. 8K resolution, especially within 25 ft. it is, as far as the taxpayers are concerned, every bit as shitty as if the cops case against you rests on 4K vs. 8K resolution, especially within 25 ft.
I'll agree that the audio capacity of phones is pretty bad, but yeah. My phone has four different cameras on the back, with different lenses on them. It's not a pure mechanical zoom, for sure, but it's not a raw digital one either.
Only leftists criticize laws written by Republicans.
I see you're here for thoughtful discussions again.
8.3 yards is about a one second close time.
Best 10 yard split on a 40 from nfl level athlete is 1.5 but if you want to go all cop sucker today, go ahead.
Now make a dumb joke and tell us how inferior the US is to Russia.
During the 60m, 100m or 200m the top sprinters go sub 1s for some of their 10m splits.
How long in waddle time. Asking for a poster here.
Is there a package or Double Stuff Oreos at the end of that 8.3 yards or something like say carrots? It could affect the time he turns in.
Carrot flavored double stuff oreos.
Carrot cake topped with a Dairy Queen Oreos Blizzard followed by a Milk Duds suppository. A few hours later, they come out looking the same.
I'm getting tired of repeating myself: "Serve And Protect" does not mean what most civilians think it means. It means smokescreens, whitewashes, and qualified immunity if you happen to be colored blue.
The public that they protect and serve is everyone else. It doesn't include anyone they come into actual contact with. Those people don't matter.
I’m going to make a company that produces cameras that can film up to 25 feet away. Then what will they do? Oh…
I dont understand this right to get within feet (arizona law reason complained about) of an arrest. Im sure if the person filming got injured they’d even find a way to blame the cops and defends lawsuits.
Arrests are not always peaceful. We have seen examples of cops assaulted in places like NYC while performing their duty. There is a reason for these laws. And it is so these situations don’t escalate. Your phone works just as well from 20 feet away. 4 adult men lying on the ground for the most part. Just had a cop stabbed in Europe. Why advocate for higher risks for no benefit?
After watching some audit channels on YouTube, seems they like the attention (YouTube famous) & hoping for a lawsuit.
They are definitely a gaggle of stupid and dangerous cops. But some of these guys seem just as bad.
After watching some audit channels on YouTube, seems they like the attention (YouTube famous) & hoping for a lawsuit.
Many of them actually make a living off of suing cops. Which is really sad if you think about it. There are so many bad cops that people make a fucking living off of suing them. Know what I’ve never seen? A good cop stop a bad cop from doing bad cop shit. Know why? Because good cops ride unicorns.
They are definitely a gaggle of stupid and dangerous cops. But some of these guys seem just as bad.
Just as dangerous? Well I suppose if you like the taste of boots you could say that people with cameras are dangerous. After all, they occasionally get officers fired.
Ironically tracerv gave you a YouTube channel that gives you many examples. But don't want to ruin your narrative.
One example of many.
https://youtu.be/9H-egfh25Qo?si=p_ts7RlCR7iPHFOf
But again, your narrative is your concern.
Here's one of my favorites. Especially when the prick tells all the other cops around to turn their cameras off .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVT-IIVsN8Y
There are some where bystanders are reasonably far away and nothings happens as well as ones that demand getting all up in an active police arrest or detainment. And ones where they are at a distance and the police make it an issue (happened to me once in a dark blue city).
The auditors that often get the paydays in my limited viewing sample size (probably 40 videos) are ones filming in a public place where there is no active police activity such as a city hall or motor vehicles department and one of the guards/officers wants to cosplay J6. Typically, a high ranking LEO shows up and explains the Constitution to the rank and file that got all butthurt when someone is exercising 1A.
Muckrakers, Nightcrawlers, Voyeurs, Paparazzi, Slanderers, Libelists, Fabulists, Yellow Journalists... half of Reason's problem is the sheer, oblivious hubris that there can never be too much speech. Hubris the *exact* same way cops think there can never be too much justice. Like, if we lived in a State where everybody spied on each other and it all got reported to the editor of the local newspaper or website for them to totally not act as editors and arbitrators, rather than LEOs or the NSA, it wouldn't be anything but another blissful day in libertopia.
This is the problem with establishment Republicans, if they aren't corrupt sell-outs to the Uniparty then they kiss teh arse of Law Enforcement believing that LEO's can do no wrong no matter what.
I don't want to vote D , but with these R's, what choice am I going to have ?
Just as we all hate laws catering to the lowest common denominator, we should not presume all cops are guilty until proven innocent. 25 feet is reasonable to allow filming cops and NOT getting in the way of their jobs. It'd be a bonus with this if the cops are required to have body cams and severe penalties if those cams are unused or disappear. Double bonus to get rid of qualified immunity.
“No person shall knowingly or intentionally approach within twenty-five feet of a peace officer who is lawfully engaged in the execution of his official duties after the peace officer has ordered the person to stop approaching or to retreat,” the law states.
So, let me get this straight. To infringe this law, you have to be given a lawful order by a police officer, and then intentionally ignore it.
...
I mean, nobody feels sorry for people who get shot when they do that. And you're getting worked up about this??
but that measure was vetoed by former Gov. John Bel Edwards. “The effect of this bill were it to become law would be to chill exercise of First Amendment rights and prevent bystanders from observing and recording police action,”
He texted, with a lot of errors, from his Nokia flip phone.
Like many other bad ideas, this one shouldn't be the basis of a lawful order.
"I mean, nobody feels sorry for people who get shot when they do that." You actually believe that? Plenty of people in the US aren't delusional, pig loving psychopaths.
It's like you're intentionally ignoring the definition of "a lawful order."
It doesn't become unlawful just because you disagree with it. If you have a problem with it, take it up with your local legislature.
You're missing the point. That shouldn't be a lawful order.
There is no legitimate reason for arbitrarily picking 25 feet when most jurisdictions around the world and across history get by with an arm's length.
I'll grant you that it's arbitrary. But most laws of this nature are.
Because, how do you make them work without some kind of drawn line? How many teams of researchers need to be hired by the government to decide the appropriate number of feet that maximizes liberty against the purpose of the law?
Why does every speed limit in America end in 5 or 0? Because they're simple numbers that are easy to comprehend and measure, and because they coordinate with speedometer designs in automobiles.
What reason does anyone have to be inside 25' of an active investigation/arrest, unless they're one of the investigators?
There is no legitimate reason for arbitrarily picking 25 feet when most jurisdictions around the world and across history get by with an arm’s length.
Setting aside the "arm's length" lie, unless you live in New Orleans or film arrests in New Orleans for a living, there's no legitimate reason for you to be complaining about it except that you think you know better than the people who elected their representatives. Which, historically, is about as much a step towards a police state as "No filming within 25 ft. of an arrest." is.
Reason always showcases the bad arguments.
1. 25 feet will not significantly hinder filming.
2. The issue is 'can a minimum distance be imposed at all' - not how difficult it is to film.
So make that argument, don't waste time with irrelevancies.
Of course, the 25 foot limit will hinder filming in many, many cases--that's the whole point of the law. In particular, it will give the pigs a chance to arrest people filming them whenever they feel like it--"well, it seemed less than 25 feet to me at the time"--and that will definitely hinder filming.
1. No, it won't. At all. Just stop it.
2. The issue is 'can a minimum distance be imposed at all'. If it can't then it's moot. If it can then you can argue about how far is too far.
Don't get caught up in irrelevancies.
Your second point is a good one, and seems to address the fundamental problem, but it's doesn't. The police, like everyone else, don't like people "looking over their shoulder," and especially filming over their shoulder in order to share with the world what they film. Even when they aren't doing anything wrong, the police simply hate that people are allowed to defy them when they order those people to leave or simply move back.
the police simply hate that people are allowed to defy them when they order those people to leave or simply move back.
Just like everyone else. The whole reason we have cubes and offices have doors is because standing there watching people do something doesn’t necessarily make them do it any better or faster.
The police, like everyone else, don’t like people “looking over their shoulder,” and especially filming over their shoulder in order to share with the world what they film.
It would be fair to say that I am not a fan of the police in general. I've been harassed for "walking while punk" (or "eating at McDonalds while punk", or "objecting to cops helping bounty-hunters kick in my friend's door without a warrant while punk", etc) too many times for that.
And if I were doing that job, making an arrest of an individual, possibly in a location where the person I was arresting had friends, I wouldn't want those other people standing three feet behind me while my attention was occupied with detaining a potentially combative individual either.
So, to cover Incunabulum's (excellent handle, BTW) question #2, I'd say that there is absolutely a minimum distance. If there's a person proned out on the ground, and a cop crouched down by that person, working to restrain them, and the person filming comes up and stands with their feet directly adjacent to the cop, that would be definitively "too close".
So what's a good minimum distance? I've seen "two arm's lengths" and "an arm's length" proposed. Having done firearms combatives training, and knowing what the Tueller Drill is, I'm going to say that's entirely too close. Tueller suggests that the minimum should be at least 21 feet.
Even as someone who dislikes the police and has been working on systems to surveil them since that incident with the bounty hunters in late 1999, I think 25 feet is not an unreasonable conclusion for these legislatures to have concurred with.
Oh, puhleeze. That doesn't begin to prevent any citizen from filming police. Get off your imaginary high horse and find something serious to be enraged about. Nobody sane would WANT to be within 8 paces of an arrest in progress. You are killing your own reputation with stupid complaints like this. Just stop!
“”an officer could be arresting someone in a manner indicating excessive force, have a bystander approach to record the arrest, and the bystander could then be immediately told by the officer ‘to stop approaching or to retreat,’ chilling the bystander’s right to record,””
Cameras do not work outside of 25 feet from the subject?
If police are exhibiting excessive force, does not staying that kind of distance away seem prudent to avoid getting involved physically and to have enough distance to see what is going on? The objection on 1st Amendment grounds is just a bizarre reach.
Legal Forcefield
This doesn’t even make sense at the level of “abstract (social) construct”.
First, a force field is supposed to make you immune or resistant to the things outside of it. A bubble or containment or stasis field applies to things within the field. This rule specifically makes them (more) susceptible to things outside of the field. The idea of a force field that only makes you immune to things within 25 is almost as laughable as Kudos and Kang getting chased off by Moe Syzlak using a board with a nail in it.
Second, the above is science fiction, not legal fiction or non-fiction. Just because someone films police doing something within 25 ft. doesn’t automatically make what the police did legal or the evidence necessarily inadmissible. It just allows them to vacate the area around the arrest. If I trespass on your property and happen to capture footage of you murdering someone, my guilt or innocence WRT trespass doesn’t necessarily or automatically void the video of the murder you committed as evidence.
Your own abstraction of the concept is a paradoxical, thought-terminating “just read my words and agree with me” mess. The whole thing feels an awful lot like the critically unaware trope about "We license people for cars, we should license people for guns."
For all the disagreement, this thread has still been more civil and, therefore, much more interesting than most recent Reason comment threads.
If I tell the cops to stay at least 25 feet away from me, do they have to obey? No? Then any law requiring me to obey them is bogus.
Does anyone remember how Reason came down in the Alec Baldwin case?
Maybe with the full knowledge that police can be trigger happy, this effort put cinematographers as close to in front of them as possible, even between them and criminals, has an ulterior motive?
Here’s the new LA law in full. Not sure why one defends this.
………………………………………………………………………………..
ACT No. 2592024 Regular Session
HOUSE BILL NO. 173,BY REPRESENTATIVES FONTENOT, MIKE JOHNSON, AND WILDER
AN ACT
To enact R.S. 14:109, relative to offenses affecting law enforcement; to create the crime of approaching a peace officer lawfully engaged in law enforcement duties; to provide
for a definition; to provide for an affirmative defense; to provide for penalties; and to provide for related matters
Be it enacted by the Legislature of Louisiana:
Section 1. R.S. 14:109 is hereby enacted to read as follows:
§109. Approaching a peace officer lawfully engaged in law enforcement duties
A. No person shall knowingly or intentionally approach within twenty-five feet of a peace officer who is lawfully engaged in the execution of his official duties after the peace officer has ordered the person to stop approaching or to retreat.
B. For the purposes of this Section, "peace officer" shall include all individuals as defined in R.S. 14:112.4(B)(2) and R.S. 40:2402(3).
C. It shall be an affirmative defense to this crime if the defendant can establish that the lawful order or command was neither received nor understood by the defendant nor capable of being received or understood under the conditions and circumstances that existed at the time of the issuance of the order. Edit: (Good luck with that)
D. Whoever violates the provisions of this Section shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars, imprisoned for not more than sixty days, or both.
………………………………………………………………………………..
END.
Hmmm, lets have a look at those definitions.
R.S. 14:112.4(B)(2)
(2) "Peace officer" shall include commissioned police officers, sheriffs, deputy sheriffs, marshals, deputy marshals, correctional officers, constables, wildlife enforcement agents, park wardens, livestock brand inspectors, forestry officers, attorney general investigators, district attorney investigators, inspector general investigators, and probation and parole officers.
uh-oh...
R.S. 40:2402(3)
(3)
(a) "Peace officer" means any employee of the state, a municipality, a sheriff, or other public agency, whose permanent duties actually include the making of arrests, the performing of searches and seizures, or the execution of criminal warrants, and is responsible for the prevention or detection of crime or for the enforcement of the penal, traffic, or highway laws of this state, but not including any elected or appointed head of a law enforcement department.
(b) "Peace officer" shall also include those sheriff's deputies whose duties include the care, custody, and control of inmates.
(c) "Peace officer" shall also include military police officers within the Military Department, state of Louisiana.
(d) "Peace officer" shall also include security personnel employed by the Supreme Court of the state of Louisiana.
(e) "Peace officer" shall also include security personnel employed by a court of appeal of the state of Louisiana.
(f) "Peace officer" shall also include the director of capitol security and security officers employed by the legislature upon recommendation of the director as provided by R.S. 24:681 et seq.
Double uh-oh....
Really wonderful since the majority of those with the new bubble-rights do not wear body-cams to record wrongdoing.
If one of these individuals or teams are in my domicile or on my property violating my rights or my neighbor’s domicile or property, I had better hope I can dash and reach 25’ just to document the violations after they have invoked the bubble.
Of course, if that 25’ is thus obscured by corners, physical barriers or other environmental obstructions that block line of sight……oh well. Go on and violate away.
The only place in my house with a 25’ line of sight is a hallway. Maybe they can just violate our rights in the living room.