COLUMBUS, Ohio — Ohio’s new 15-foot buffer around working first responders drew support from Police1 readers who said crowds have complicated arrests, crime scene security and protest response. Others questioned whether the law will be enforceable without infringing on the public’s right to observe and record police.
Gov. Mike DeWine signed House Bill 20 on July 7. Under the law, a person must receive a verbal warning to maintain their distance, stay away, back away or not interfere before they can be penalized for knowingly approaching or remaining within 15 feet of a first responder while interfering with the responder’s duties or threatening physical harm. Simply observing or recording from within 15 feet is not, on its own, prohibited.
The conduct constitutes obstructing official business. A violation that creates a risk of physical harm to an emergency service responder is a fourth-degree felony.
The law is scheduled to take effect Oct. 6.
After Police1 asked readers whether crowds or bystanders had ever made their jobs more difficult — and whether a 15-foot buffer would have helped — many described situations in which officers had to divide their attention between an arrest and the people gathering around them.
Readers describe crowds pressing into police scenes
Several readers said the danger is not simply that bystanders are watching or recording. It is that officers cannot always determine the intentions of someone standing close enough to intervene.
“Absolutely, crowds have made it harder,” one reader wrote. “When they’re in close range, now you’re unable to focus squarely on the incident at hand, but have to split your focus and mind on the surrounding crowd for officer safety.”
Another reader recalled people moving close while an arrest was underway.
“Yes, I have been in arrest situations where people have been right up on me while I am trying to get cuffs on,” the reader wrote. “A buffer zone would be helpful.”
A retired member of the Pasco County Sheriff’s Office in Florida said the boundary “absolutely would have made a safer environment on thousands of calls for service.”
One reader described how crowds affected mounted officers attempting to support officers on the ground.
“While ground officers needed assistance, crowds rushed in to see or video the police action,” the reader wrote. “The mounted officers had to clear a large radius around the officers so they could perform their duties.”
Because the mounted officers were occupied with moving the crowd and protecting everyone in the area, they were unable to provide immediate assistance to the ground officers, the reader said.
Another reader called for similar protections nationwide, citing encounters at arrests, crime scenes and protests.
“If they aren’t confrontational during an arrest, they are crowding you at a crime scene, or worse, at a protest when they are in spitting distance,” the reader wrote. “This should be nationwide.”
Is 15 feet enough?
Some supporters argued that the buffer should be larger.
“The buffer zone is good, but I believe it should be bigger, maybe up to 20 to 25 feet,” one reader wrote. “Not only for the safety of the public and first responders, but the privacy of any victims. I’ve seen these auditors try to climb in the back of an ambulance.”
Another reader rejected the argument that the law would prevent people from documenting police activity.
“With today’s technology, you can record from well over 15 feet,” the reader wrote.
One commenter wanted the law to carry an even stronger penalty, writing, “I agree with the law, but make it a felony to violate. Give it some teeth.”
Under the law, obstructing official business becomes a fourth-degree felony when the violation creates a risk of physical harm to an emergency service responder. Other violations involving a responder may be charged as misdemeanors.
Readers question how the boundary will be enforced
Other readers were concerned that determining whether someone was within 15 feet would be subjective, particularly during a fast-moving encounter.
“Who’s to say how close someone really was to first responders?” one reader wrote. “Nobody is walking around with a tape measure.”
The reader argued that the law could be used improperly against people recording police activity.
Another called the law a “slippery slope,” questioning what happens if an officer moves toward a person who is attempting to remain outside the buffer.
“If it’s simply that people need to stay 15 feet back, that’s reasonable,” the reader wrote. “But I see this being taken advantage of and used to make sure people are 30 feet back, 45 feet back, 60 feet back and then arrest them after they refuse to retreat against the officer’s advances.”
One reader opposed both the buffer provision and the enhanced felony penalty, saying officers in the reader’s community already issue obstruction citations too readily.
Another reader argued that the larger problem involves antagonistic behavior on both sides.
“I don’t believe that a 15-foot buffer zone is what’s at issue here,” the reader wrote. “I think it’s a matter of ego and antagonism — ego on the part of police and antagonistic behavior by First Amendment auditors. We have to do better.”
Will the law make a practical difference?
Some readers doubted that the legislation would change how officers manage crowds.
“This law is not going to do a damn thing,” one reader wrote. “Police have always had a right to separate crowds and arrest for obstruction, at least in Ohio. People will always crowd you and, now, take a video of you.”
Another said the concept may be helpful but predicted that the law would face problems in court.
“In theory, such a law sounds helpful,” the reader wrote. “In application, it will quickly be struck down as overly broad and unenforceable.”
Readers also questioned whether a fixed distance provides a clear safety standard or introduces another judgment call into encounters that are already tense and rapidly changing.
Have anything you’d like to add? Let us know below.
