Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Order And Policing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee Debates Amendments Restricting Proximity to Law Enforcement, Then Holds SB 30 for Further Work
Summary
Senate Bill 30 and its amendment drew pushback over whether the measure would limit citizens’ ability to record police and whether sections capture multiple subjects. The sponsor said the changes target intimidation and public-safety interference; the committee rolled the item to a future meeting for further review.
Senate Bill 30, as amended, drew sustained questioning in the Senate Judiciary Committee after the sponsor described new misdemeanor offenses that would prohibit intimidation near government property and create new penalties for interfering with law enforcement duties.
Amendment 34-18, described by the sponsor, makes several changes: it creates a class A misdemeanor for littering or trespassing with intent to intimidate; makes giving a false name when lawfully detained a misdemeanor; establishes a misdemeanor for intentionally approaching an officer who is actively engaged in lawful duties (the sponsor described a 25-foot proximity standard for the directive); creates a class B misdemeanor for transporting people in an unsecured box truck; and would permit officers to arrest for certain misdemeanors based on video or evidence committed outside the officer's immediate presence where reasonable suspicion exists.
Sponsor Senator Pote (recorded in committee as the speaker describing the amendment) said the measure is not intended to prohibit lawful observation or recording of police activity but to prevent intimidation and interference that creates safety risks at active scenes. "It's not something that you're just dropping a piece of paper off... This is if you're intimidating someone from exercising their civil rights," the sponsor said while describing the littering/trespass provision. The senator also said the section on approaches to officers seeks to de-escalate dangerous crowds and keep officers able to focus on arrests and traffic stops.
Opponents and some committee members voiced First Amendment and public‑safety concerns. Senator Roberts asked whether the 25-foot rule could prevent bystanders from recording police misconduct — citing the George Floyd case as an example where bystander video was essential. Legal staff told the panel the amendment would not expressly ban recording; it would impose a proximity limit only under specified circumstances (a traffic stop, active investigation of a crime scene or an ongoing and immediate threat to public safety), and the prosecutable offense would require the officer to have reasonable suspicion.
Committee members also asked the Department of Safety whether the State Highway Patrol would use a new authority to arrest for misdemeanors based on video or social‑media postings; the Department said it was neutral and that enforcement agencies would generally welcome tools that aid prosecution of dangerous, disruptive conduct, but did not commit to specific enforcement numbers.
After discussion, the sponsor asked that the bill be rolled to a future committee date while members and stakeholders consider language changes and any constitutional issues; the committee agreed to take it up again next week.
