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.
Police1 readers respond:
- It is absolutely a necessary and effective tool. HOWEVER, much like any other tool, i.e., TASER, ALPR, baton, OC, BWCs, they have to be used PROPERLY. Officers need to be trained on how to clearly establish a distance, whether it’s a statute-mandated distance or a reasonable distance. Give the person/people a specific line of demarcation: don’t come closer than that tree, or that driveway, fire hydrant, sign, etc. Just yelling “get back” and using arbitrary terms like they were too close, or I felt unsafe w/o further explanation, becomes the slippery slope into contempt of cop and cover charges (hindering, obstructing, etc). We have to maintain professionalism, especially in the face of scrutiny and cell phones.
- 15 feet is still too close. 25 to 30 feet would be better. Always have a plan when making an arrest. Have enough officers to take the subject into custody & additional officers if needed to deal with the crowd. Know your environment & be safe.
- As an old retired LEO, I will chime in and say that 15' is not enough space. I believe 30' would be a good minimum distance to ensure officers are able to work more efficiently and safely. This kind of law should have been put in place in the 90s when societal attitudes towards law enforcement changed.
- This 15' rule is a JOKE! Read the following: In the Tueller Drill (often called the 21-foot rule), the indicated time for an assailant to travel 21 feet is approximately 1.5 seconds! This is an average; many people can close the distance much quicker. As a LEO, I and many others have trained in this procedure many times and the clock in hard to beat while standing facing a stationary target when the signal alerts you draw and fire. You are standing stationary, facing a stationary silhouette of a full-size man, you have zero distractions with full awareness of the impending signal. When it beeps, the clock in running and registers the time from the beep to the first round fired and the time between each successive shot. I am among the very few with the lowest time and mine is 1.37 seconds. NOW USE YOUR COMMON SENSE!! An officer is busy with rowdy protesters/RIOTERS. Just how much time do you add for the distraction movement to release someone and react to an ATTACKER? 15ft. is not only stupidly short, but gives a PERP a perfect excuse to present to some Far Left Democrat Appointed Judge. Like the man said, “who the heck runs around with a tape and has to measure the distance when some idiot is attacking them.”
- I would rather see it increased to 30 feet. That would be a better safety zone for officers.,In my opinion, that’s not “freedom of speech”. It’s putting law enforcement in “harm’s way” and should be illegal.
- All cell phones and cameras have a zoom feature. Overall, in an encounter, people will give you the room you ask for. I am also working in small town USA. The attitude changes when an encounter occurs with an audience around. 15 feet is nowhere far enough away for officer safety. Officers are trained to keep people out of the reactionary gap. Sometimes that’s not big enough when you talk crowds. I am totally fine with people videoing me. I have a camera attached to my uniform. People have been taking and knocking off body cams to keep us from getting the video we record. What do we hear a lot of now? “Do you have your body cam on?” In a recent incident, officers in a large department did not have body cameras. I feel naked without mine. In-car cameras, I feel the same way. People need to let officers do their jobs. Officers need to perform their jobs with honesty, integrity, and transparency. Better yet, let’s not rush to judgment. That goes for the public as well as officers. I am an officer and will always be one. I am a civilian when not in uniform but yet still an officer.
- It is absolutely a necessary and effective tool. HOWEVER, much like any other tool, i.e. Taser, ALPR, baton, OC, BWC’s, they have to be used PROPERLY. Officers need to be trained on how to clearly establish a distance, whether it’s a statute-mandated distance, or a reasonable distance. Give the person/people a specific line of demarcation: don’t come closer than that tree, or that driveway, fire hydrant, sign, etc. Just yelling “get back” and using arbitrary terms like they were too close, or I felt unsafe w/o further explanation, becomes the slippery slope into contempt of cop and cover charges (hindering, obstructing, etc). We have to maintain professionalism, especially in the face of scrutiny and cell phones.
- How does 15 ft make a difference if the officer needs 20 or 25 based on the behavior and actions of the bystanders? Are they really bystanders, and how does the officer determine it? Distracting behavior, veiled or open threats, by individuals can be just as detrimental to a scene, especially if an officer is less experienced, solo, or there are limited officers for the size of the crowd. The word reasonable is applied so often in case law and the legal system, which attempts not to create bright-line rules. Why is it that legislators are doing so in a seemingly arbitrary manner? Reasonable should be the metric based on the totality of the situation.
- Yes, while working mounted enforcement, and while ground officers needed assistance, crowds rushed in to see or video the police action. The mounted officers had to clear a large radius around the officers so they could perform their duties. Mounted officers, while doing radius clearing, were not able to directly offer immediate assistance to the ground officers. Mounted officers had to protect the safety of both the crowds and the officers at the same time and were at times very distracting.
I think the 15 Ft buffer would be enforceable as well as any other measured law would. Take speed enforcement for example. Most officers do not pull someone over for doing 1 to 2 mph over the speed limit; they create a buffer of about 10-13 mph over before stopping. In this circumstance, a person within 5-7 feet, where a person could cause an issue for an officer, would be enforced. I don’t think there would be anyone attempting to enforce someone within 14 feet during a high-risk situation or otherwise where a measuring tape would need to be deployed. As long as the rule is used responsibly, IMO, it shouldn’t result in to much of a slippery slope.
