Florida’s ‘Halo Law’ Goes Into Effect, Which Will Just Let More Cops Dodge Accountability
from the stop-watching-us,-they-legislated dept
Last April, Florida governor Ron DeSantis signed a law designed specifically to make it easier for cops to arrest people who film them. While it’s generally accepted (without Supreme Court precedent… for some weird reason) by most courts that recording public employees in public while they perform their public duties is protected by the First Amendment, this law says the First Amendment simply doesn’t apply within approximately 25 feet of any cop who doesn’t wanted to be filmed.
“I don’t think there’s anyone that can match what we’ve done to protect the citizens of this state, but particularly to ensure that we respect and protect the men and women who wear the uniform,” DeSantis said at the bill signing event in St. Augustine, surrounded by uniformed officers and standing behind a lectern sign that said, “Supporting Law Enforcement.”
One bill (SB 184) creates a 25-foot “no-go” zone around first responders, including police. The other (HB 601) would limit what citizen police oversight boards can do, including investigating complaints of officer misconduct, and would require these panels to be re-established under county sheriffs and municipal police chiefs, who would appoint the members.
To make it appear this isn’t just a favor to cops, the legislation says the no-go zone applies to all “first responders,” although we have yet to hear any fire department personnel or EMS responders complain about being filmed while performing their duties.
The law went into effect on January 1st of this year, but we already saw it invoked last year during some questionable police response during a traffic stop of Miami Dolphins wide receiver Tyreek Hill. While some officers were pushing Hill’s face into the pavement for being less than compliant during the stop, other officers were yelling at people operating cell phone cameras to move away from the scene.
The newly enacted law creates the threat of jail time for people who are just trying to document police activity. Here’s Firehouse (a site that provides information targeting non-cop “first responders”) reposting Miami Herald reporting that explains what the law says and what it means for those who might intrude on the subjective 25-foot halo created by this legislation:
Under the “Halo Law,” if you fail to comply with the request to move back and are perceived to be harassing or impeding first responders, you could face a second-degree misdemeanor charge.
The charge could include jail time of up to 60 days. You could also be fined $500.
“Harass,” as defined by the new law, is to “willfully engage in a course of conduct directed at a first responder which intentionally causes substantial emotional distress in that first responder and serves no legitimate purpose.”
It’s nice that the last sentence includes an “and.” With an “or,” literally anyone any cop didn’t want hanging around the scene could be portrayed as (subjectively) “harassing.” With the “and,” a little more must be shown to indicate intent, although “no legitimate purpose” determinations are still in the eye of the beholder until a court takes a look at whatever evidence remains following a cop-ordered shut down of a citizen’s camera.
One of the worst people in Florida law enforcement was one of the first to applaud the law’s enactment:
“You can video law enforcement officers, that’s your constitutional right,” Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd, an advocate of the new law, said in an NBC6 report. “But you’ve got to stay out of their way while they’re doing their jobs.”
That might mean something if people who have been arrested for filming cops were actually getting in the way of officers “doing their jobs.” But almost every arrest witnessed to date involves a cop wandering away from the scene to harass citizens armed with cameras. After interfering with their right to film, cops take phones, manhandle people exercising their rights, and invoke laws that were definitely not written with the intent of protecting law enforcement officers from public accountability.
It’s worth noting that both the supporters and the opponents of the law have never invoked other first responders when discussing the law. That’s because — despite the wording — it’s not about protecting all first responders from this alleged “harassment.” It’s only there to protect law enforcement officers, because they’re the only ones complaining about the public’s recently innate ability to document their actions. This is a favor to cops.
Real first responders — those who show up with a desire to help people — don’t need to be “saved” from the public by BS legislation. Only cops who don’t like their narratives being undercut want “protection” from the public’s ability to undermine their claims. Those writing the law know this and so does the governor of the state, who knows it takes the support of the powerful to remain employed as the Chief Petty Tyrant of America’s penis.
Filed Under: 1st amendment, filming police, first responders, florida, police accountablity, police misconduct, ron desantis


Comments on “Florida’s ‘Halo Law’ Goes Into Effect, Which Will Just Let More Cops Dodge Accountability”
Ooohhh. So cops are national boards then. That actually makes a lot of sense. Of course the constitution can’t apply to them.
If only they wrote an anti-stalking law that way, and actually enforced it.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Any cop who hates being filmed should be dead. He’s probably a pedo and serial killer.
Uh what?
I read constant complaints both by fire departments as well as EMS responders about groups of idiots with mobile phone cameras blocking emergency access and flagrantly violating the privacy of both medical responders and victims. That’s why first responder equipment by now includes privacy screens. Particularly with highway accidents, this reduces the danger both to and due to peeping toms who are trying to entertain followers.
Which is not to say that prohibiting the recording of first responder interactions is a good idea, and that 25 feet of blanket distance is always called for.
But there is an actual problem the law relies on as justification, and pretending there isn’t does not lead anywhere sensible. It may well be that the law does less to address this problem than it does to feed the problem of unaccountability particularly of police. But not wanting to see what the law purports to address is not going to lead to a resolution.
Re:
Would you please provide us with three representative links? And if you can provide anything particular showing frequency, that too would be appreciated.
Re: Re:
Ever hear of google?
Re: Re: Re:
That which can be claimed w/o proof can be dismissed just as easily
Re:
Lookieloos have always been around. This is not new. Heck, its not legal in most states to follow within 500 feet of a firetruck when they are in active duty (ie. not just going back to the station).
Its already illegal to interfere with first responders. The same argument you are making here has been applied in the past – to newspaper photojournalists, journalists, TV reporters and cameramen.
Yes, ‘influencers’ and other internet-points-for-the-win individuals are in disfavor….but they are no different than lookieloos or the press in the past. Current law already covers them and makes interference illegal.
The ones that are really complaining here are the cops, who want to be able to do whatever they want and then rely on he-said-she-said to defend their actions, rather than evidentiary video and audio.
This is to pander to cops and the pro-cop crowd. Nothing more. Existing law covered this already.
Re:
Actually, the reason for the screens is to help rubberneckers realize there really is nothing they can see and move on quickly, helping traffic flow. But you keep making up your own interpretations’ it’s really amusing.
It applies to all first responders? Great. Any civil servants who aren’t the first on the scene are free from the 25′ restriction.
It is because of frauditors
The ones who harass and intrude on everyone to make a buck on youtube
Re:
Police have, in theory, given training in de-escalation and handling stressful situations. If an officer can be rendered into frothing incoherent rage by an unarmed person asserting that they are allowed to walk on the sidewalk by the police station without giving ID, that is an officer I would like o see named, shamed and retrained until they can control themselves.
Tim, I’m curious what you would recommend to to prevent police from being interfered with while doing their job. (I’m not trolling you). Where is the line? Or, should they simply not do anything and let people get right into what they are doing?
Re:
i think the line is “actual interference”. As in, not when a cop notices something that bugs them, then willfully abandons their duties to harass someone else. The onlyones interfering with the cops there are the cops.
You get in the way of arriving vehicles or servants, physically get in the way of their duties or efforts, then you’re interfering. i don’t know why this is hard. Cops have cams too. Hell, they can outright make shit up that contradicts what the cams show and still get their way 90% of the time. We don’t need an extra law where cops can estimate 25 feet as 100 feet based on their feelings.
Re:
The burden of the legislators is to show that there’s actually a need for the law and its associated restraint on Constitutional rights, not for citizens to have to justify their rights in order to keep them. And bad actors actually interfering is already illegal and able to be charged as an offense, but also shouldn’t be used as justification for curbing rights of those who aren’t interfering. This law allows a cop to walk towards someone and thus create an illegal act out of a legal act simply by their proximity. It’s like cops telling someone to step off the curb and then arresting them for jaywalking. This will be abused by petty cops on a power trip and it won’t protect scenes from interference.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
Tim Cushing hates police and wishes they were all dead. He’d support citizens being able to murder the cops by beating them to death with iPhones if someone would propose that.
Re: Re:
You have just proposed that and I’ve yet to see Cushing supporting it. Methinks he never will.
Re: Re:
Right you are, sir! I hear Tim also wears different colored socks on each foot and inserts the toilet paper roll so it pulls from the underside rather than over the top! I for one would never trust Tim to pet sit my gila monster on the third Tuesday of the month!
We are just making absurd claims, right? That’s the schtick we’re doing here?
Re:
Your flagrant effort to conflate recording from 20 or 15 feet away rather than 25 with interference makes giving you ‘im not trolling’ grace really hard.
the bright line is actual interference. This law exists because courts have repeatedly ruled that passive recording is not interference. So the law exists to statutorily define interference as recording within a specific distance, regardless of the level of actual interference.
The reason cops keep tripping over this, is they don’t like 3rd party recordings, and keep declaring interference on the basis that being observed disrupts their ability to act, and courts keep saying that as a rule looky-loos need to do more than record.
The final line on when a bystander ‘interferes’, if you genuinely have difficulty distinguishing passive recording from obstruction, doesn’t matter. Because where the line is isn’t at issue. The issue is active efforts to move the line from ‘interference’ (a factual analysis of the actual interference) to ‘whomever the cop doesn’t like within 25 ft’. (a analysis of geometry and is facts-agnostic to whether interference happened).
Awww, so sad.
'If you're able to see what we're doing you're too close!'
What’s the phrase cops and their defenders love to break out whenever the privacy or rights of the public is under threat? Ah yes, ‘If you’ve done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide’.
For people that insist that they’re always in the right cops sure are allergic to video evidence that would demonstrate that.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
Just use your zoom lens! Film all you want, but step back and get out of the way.
Re: Re:
The Flat Earthers have bought up all the P1000s.
Re: Re:
You do know zoom lenses can’t film through an LEO shield, right? The only reason for this law is so there’s no evidence to disprove the police coroner’s verdict of “excited delirium” after the body cams of the police all get “accidentally” switched off while some of them “restrain” the suspect to death, bootlicker.
Re: Re:
Zoom lenses won’t capture good audio. Cops have been caught on camera saying one thing during the incident and reporting something different in their reports.
Re: Re: Re:
No, but booms will, and if the cops don’t like that, well, the person is still standing 25 feet away.
Re: Re: Re:2
My smartphone doesn’t have a boom mic and I’m not carrying one around actively recording on the off-chance a corrupt cop is going to incriminate himself within range of it.
But the 25 feet is mobile. The cop, not the scene, is the center of the 25 foot bubble. The cop can approach the person using a boom mic and zoom lens from 25 feet away and cause that person to be in violation of the law. The person would first have to know what 25 feet is, which of course the cop can flub and just claim any distance is 25 feet. “I thought it was 25 feet” will be the new “I thought he had a gun.” It’ll be the cops’ “reasonable” belief that the person was within 25 feet of them and arrest them for filming regardless of the actual distance.
Then the person would have to continue to back up away from the cop as the cop approaches them, which also looks like running from cops. And depending on the surrounding environs, such as buildings and walls you can’t magically pass through, 25 feet may mean going around a corner where you can’t witness the cop abusing their authority, brutalizing a suspect, or planting evidence.
Re: Re: Re:3
“But sir, I had to back away from the cop to stay at least 25 feet away. I violated one law because I was obeying the other!”
“Case dismissed with prejudice.”
Any cop who hates being filmed shouldn’t be in the job and should live in the wilderness, what with their colleagues’ body cams and CCTV in every urban area.
Of the two bills, I find the second one, which is undisclosed, to be the more pernicious.
Mandating review boards be law enforcement created and controlled, and limiting their purview to policy overview isn’t just regulatory capture, it’s regulatory annexation and colonization.
Florida’s a no-go zone for decent people.
“One bill (SB 184) creates a 25-foot “no-go” zone around first responders, including police. ”
I’m thinking the entire state is a no go zone at this point. Soon it will be a no wake zone.
“thought it was 25 yards” – qualified immunity
They tried this in Arizona with an 8-foot “bubble.” It didn’t work there, I don’t see it passing judicial review in this case either.
Chief Petty Tyrant of America's penis
A pity we can’t nominate this as a funny comment, that’s the best laugh I’ve had all decade. XD
Yes, I am childish and like dick jokes, sue me.
The Rodney King beating was recorded from a nearby balcony, that was probably more than twenty five feet away.
This law will not provide law enforcement their desired freedom to do as they please without it being documented.
Re:
Except the cops can move the 25 feet, so they can still stop people from recording them by approaching them.
halo "law"
so if i get stopped and i am recording the “interaction” in me car does the COP HAVE TO MOVE 25′ away?!
With any luck, the public will see this as a call to hide while filming cops at work. Once the cops start seeing all their TV type bad-ass BS being shown on the Web from a distance using a zoom lens, this kind of silly 25 foot circle of protection VS reality will likely go away. The public needs to start thinking of stealth, now that the cops have stopped working FOR the public.
This is the age of fat trump, who actively wants to Make Amerika Florida Again. We MUST welcome our new Police State Overlords, as they ensure that we live thoughtful, productive and most of all LOYAL and OBEDIENT lives! Sieg Heil MAGA!! HEIL fat trump!!
Accountability in Law Enforcement and the Impact of Florida’s ‘Halo Law’
Accountability is the foundation of trust between law enforcement and the community. Laws like Florida’s ‘Halo Law’ risk undermining this trust by creating more barriers to holding officers responsible for their actions. While it’s crucial to support law enforcement, there must also be transparency and accountability to ensure justice is upheld.
At Big D’s Concrete LLC, we believe in building strong, lasting foundations—not just in construction, but in our communities too. Policies that prioritize fairness and accountability are what truly strengthen society.
What are your thoughts on this law? Let’s discuss!
Oh yes it’s all about the first amendment auditors and their toes being stepped on. It has NOTHING to do with bystanders, crowds and summoned family members CONSTANTLY interfering with first responder actions and arrests.
With all this high and mighty babble you’d think it would behoove you to do a 10 second google search but I’ll do it for you because I’m nice.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=crowd+interfere+with+arrest
Have a good day.