top of page
Search

Louisiana's 25-Foot Police Buffer Law Deemed Unconstitutional

Admin

Updated: 7 days ago

In 2024, the Louisiana legislature passed La. R.S. 14:109, which states, in part:

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.


A constitutional challenge was filed claiming violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments---particularly affecting the right to gather and report the news. Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction, which would halt enforcement of the law.


On Friday, January 31, 2025, a federal judge granted the preliminary injunction on the grounds that the law is unconstitutionally vague. The court reasoned that the law does not provide fair notice to the public as to what will prompt an order to retreat and thus the public is not on notice of what behavior to avoid. Also, the law contains no standards by which officers are to determine whether to issue an order to retreat, therefore providing no limits to arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement.


As a result of this ruling, Louisiana law enforcement officials must cease enforcing this law. This is not to say that police officers are left without authority to require onlookers to disburse or move away from the immediate area of an investigation. La. R.S. 14:329 (2010) provides the following making it illegal to interfere with a law enforcement investigation:


Interfering with a law enforcement investigation is the intentional interference or obstruction of a law enforcement officer conducting investigative work at the scene of a crime or the scene of an accident by refusing to move or leave the immediate scene of the crime or the accident when ordered to do so by the law enforcement officer when the offender has reasonable grounds to believe the officer is acting in the performance of his official duties.


Additionally, La. R.S. 14:108 (2024) makes illegal the intentional interference with, opposition or resistance to, or obstruction of an individual acting in his official capacity. Of note, this only applies when an officer is engaged in either: (1) making an arrest; (2) making a lawful detention; (3) seizing property; or (4) service of process.


Be aware that older caselaw excludes application to situations when an officer is merely lawfully detaining an individual who is not yet under arrest, but the statute was amended to include this activity in 2006. Also, officers often mistakenly believe that La. R.S. 14:108 only applies to the person being arrested or detained; however, this is not true. The caselaw is clear that any person intentionally interfering with one of the four enumerated activities can be charged with resisting an officer.


Further, should an onlooker intentionally verbally interfere with an officer's investigation in a public place, there may be a viable charge for Disturbing the Peace (La. R.S. 14:103). There is much debate among prosecutors whether there need be an independent "victim" or if an officer can be the "victim" of disturbing the peace. However, §103(A)(2) may hold the answer:


(A) Disturbing the peace is the doing of any of the following in such manner as would foreseeably disturb or alarm the public:


(2) Addressing any offensive, derisive, or annoying words to any other person who is lawfully in any street, or other public place; or call him by any offensive or derisive name, or make any noise or exclamation in his presence and hearing with the intent to deride, offend, or annoy him, or to prevent him from pursuing his lawful business, occupation, or duty.


Although there must be a careful balancing between suppression of free speech and the government's interest in conducting investigations, in McDaniel v. Green, 99-1087 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/22/99), 755 So.2d 942, the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal stated:


"Profane and vulgar words spoken to a police officer 'without threatening conduct, have been held within the realm of protected free speech, even though the words are shocking to the sensibilities of others. A trained police officer is held to a ‘higher degree of restraint that [sic] the average citizen’ to avoid physical retaliation even to words that might be categorized as ‘fighting words.’ ' City of West Monroe v. Cox, 511 So.2d 1200, 1202–3 (La.App. 2 Cir.1987). However, while a police officer must display restraint and not retaliate to a personal verbal attack, the officer does have the right to take steps necessary to pursue his lawful duties.


It is not factually disputed that McDaniel's actions, from almost immediately after the stop, had the effect of preventing Officer Green from performing the most basic investigation. Officer Green was lawfully in a public place, pursuing his lawful duty when McDaniel began his tirade. While the initial rather mild profanity (“b___ s___”) is in itself protected speech, that language coupled with McDaniel's refusal to allow Officer Green to ask a question or complete a comment was offensive, derisive, and annoying; and prevented Officer Green 'from pursuing his lawful business, occupation, or duty.'"


Law enforcement officers must use extreme caution so not to quell a citizen's clearly established First Amendment rights. This even includes vulgar and sometimes fighting words. However, they are allowed to take measures to safely perform their duties---but they simply can no longer rely on La. R.S. 14:109 (2024) to do so.


Courrege Consluting Group offers a two-hour attorney-instructed First Amendment class that addresses these issues in further detail. Contact us today for pricing and availability.



0 comments

Comments


bottom of page