Federal judge hears arguments on Louisiana’s 25-foot police buffer law

16th December 2024   ·   0 Comments

By Drew Costley
Contributing Writer

(Veritenews.org) — A federal judge in Baton Rouge heard arguments last week from news organizations and the state of Louisiana on whether a new state law, creating a 25-foot buffer zone around police officers, illegally infringes on First Amendment rights.

The measure, Act 259, which passed the Louisiana State Legislature in the spring and was signed into law by Gov. Jeff Landry in May, makes it a criminal offense to knowingly or intentionally come within 25 feet of a working police officer after being ordered or asked to step back.

Six news organizations, including Verite News, filed suit against state Attorney General Liz Murrill, Louisiana State Police Superintendent Robert Hodges and East Baton Rouge District Attorney Hillar Moore on July 31, the day before the law was set to go into effect, to prevent it from being enforced.

First Amendment attorneys representing the news organizations argued that the law is meant to unconstitutionally impede journalists and members of the public from observing police officers, making it more difficult for them to record and report on police misconduct.

They are asking federal Judge John deGravelles, of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, to grant a preliminary injunction that would halt the enforcement of the law.

But state officials, including Murrill, have argued that the law will keep officers safe and free from interference as they do their work.

Louisiana is one of a handful of states that have passed police buffer zone laws. Similar laws have passed in Florida, Arizona and Indiana. Arizona’s 2022 buffer zone law was struck down as unconstitutional by a federal court. The Indiana law has faced two civil rights challenges. In one of those cases, a federal judge in South Bend early this year upheld it. In the second, a judge in September struck it down.

During the hearing, attorneys for the state of Louisiana urged deGravelles to dismiss the case because the plaintiffs can’t show actual harm has been or will be caused by the law.

DeGravelles did not make a ruling on Wednesday. He is holding off while both sides submit additional briefs on First Amendment law.

“We appreciated the opportunity to be heard by the court,” Grayson Clary, staff attorney with Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press, who is representing the newsrooms, said after the court hearing. “We think this is a law that has serious consequences for every journalist in Louisiana and every member of the public, too.”

In a written statement following the hearing, Murrill defended the law as a common-sense public safety measure that will protect police officers while they are on the job.

“The 25-foot buffer zone law for working police is a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction that ensures law enforcement can do their jobs without threat or obstruction by others,” the statement reads. “We were proud to present oral arguments today in defense of Act 259, which protects those who protect us. Act 259 is plainly constitutional. We look forward to the judge’s decision, which we are confident will recognize the importance of protecting our peace officers while they are executing their duties.”

‘What do you mean, technically?’

At one point during the proceedings, deGravelles pushed the state’s attorneys on the level of discretion officers have to enforce the buffer zone. The plaintiffs have argued that the law gives officers the power to invoke the law arbitrarily, even in situations where their safety and ability to do their jobs is not under threat.

“If some reporters are around and an officer doesn’t like it,” can he give an order to move? deGravelles asked.

“Technically,” responded Caitlin Huettemann, one of the attorneys representing the state.

“What do you mean, ‘technically’? It’s either yes or no,” deGravelles said. He then asked whether the law applies equally to members of the press and the general public. Huettemann said it could.

But Huettemann emphasized that this is still hypothetical. According to her, no officers have enforced the law or arrested anyone for violating it in the four months since it went into effect. Because of that, the plaintiffs can’t prove whether it will violate journalists’ First Amendment rights.

Clary said that argument was a red herring. He said that officers regularly asked reporters and photographers to step back prior to Act 259 going into law. But instead of being a request that journalists could choose to comply with, the new law brings the threat of arrest and jail should a journalist choose not to comply.

“It doesn’t matter what happened before Act 259 because we’re talking about Act 259,” Huettemann responded.

The plaintiffs have three days to submit their additional filing and then the defense will have three days to respond, after which deGravelles will rule.

This article originally published in the December 16, 2024 print edition of The Louisiana Weekly newspaper.

Tags:  Louisiana Police, Police Buffer Law