CHICAGO — A federal appeals court has struck down Indiana’s police buffer zone law, ruling that it is unconstitutionally vague and could lead to arbitrary enforcement, IndyStar reported.
In a decision issued Aug. 5, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that the 2023 law, which established a 25-foot buffer zone around on-duty police officers, violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process protections, according to the report. The ruling did not address First Amendment concerns raised by media organizations and civil liberties groups.
Writing for the court, Judge Doris Pryor said the statute gave officers too much discretion to issue arbitrary orders and criminalize otherwise lawful behavior, such as asking for directions or walking past a patrol scene.
| NEW RESOURCE: How to fund Drone as First Responder programs (eBook)
Lawyers defending the statute conceded that officers could order people to stop approaching for reasons as trivial as having a “bad breakfast.” In response, Pryor wrote, that reasoning will not stand “no matter how bitter the coffee or soggy the scrambled eggs.”
Enforcement of the law had already been paused under a federal injunction issued in September 2024, which deemed the statute too vague to be fairly enforced, according to the report.
The law, passed as House Bill 1186 in April 2023, made it a Class C misdemeanor to approach within 25 feet of an on-duty officer after being told to stop.
In a separate ruling in May, the same appeals court upheld the law against a First Amendment challenge.
It remains to be determined whether the law will be permanently blocked for all residents of Indiana or only for those directly involved in the lawsuit. A 2025 U.S. Supreme Court decision limited the ability of federal courts to issue broad injunctions beyond named plaintiffs, potentially narrowing the impact of such rulings.
Similar legal challenges to police buffer laws are ongoing in Louisiana and Tennessee, according to the report.
Do you believe this law and others like it are justifiable for officer safety or are they overbroad, as the Indiana court ruled?
Police1 readers respond
- I support laws like this, however, after 25 years as a street-level patrol officer and having been the officer being surrounded by people who may not have my wellbeing as their priority, I have seen enough officers overstep for no good reason simply because the law is vague enough that they can get away with it. So while I support these types of laws wholeheartedly, I believe they do need to be narrowed with more specific wording than this one.
- The law is definitely justifiable for on-duty officers. NYC is a clear example of citizens getting too close to cfficers as they are attempting to perform their duties. With current cellphone/camera technology, you do not need to get any closer than 25' if you “believe” the officer is acting improperly.
- I would love to put those judges in uniform and put them on patrol in areas where the patrol units hustle to call after call after call through shift after shift and see what they have to say after that experience. Once again, put officer safety last.
- I strongly feel this is an important law that used properly can greatly increase a law enforcement officer’s safety. An officer trying to make an arrest in a crowed area not only has to be concerned about the subject they are trying to arrest, but everyone around them as well. A 25-foot buffer zone gives an officer more time to respond to an approaching threat. It also identifies potential threats sooner when a person refuses to comply with a lawful order. During the course of my 30-year law enforcement career, there were times when this law would have made my job a lot safer. Maybe rewrite the law to narrow its usage to certain situations. Then make sure officers understand the intention of the law so they don’t abuse it.
- Having spent 50 years in law enforcement, I feel that a police buffer zone law is necessary in today’s climate. When I started in1964, people didn’t surround you when making arrests. It didn’t require 3-4 officers to control the subject arrested. Over time things have changed and not only do you have to fight the subject of the arrest, but the bystanders who for whatever reaso, don’t want the person arrested.
- It is absolutely a necessity for officers safety. If I as an officer, lawfully give someone an order not to approach and stay away while I’m doing my job and they choose not to listen, then there should be consequences!
- They are critical for officer safety. Distractions can cause things to spin out of control in seconds. Officers have been killed during these encounters. We need a universal law to cover every cop everywhere.
