Committee holds public hearing on bill creating offense for interference with first responders; members debate scope and free-speech limits

The Alabama House Public Safety and Homeland Security Committee held a public hearing on HB2024, a bill that would create the crime of interference with a first responder. Sponsor Representative Treadaway explained the bill would prohibit approaching or remaining within 25 feet of a first responder after a lawful order and would make specified conduct a class A misdemeanor.

Representative Treadaway told the committee the measure was prompted by concerns raised by the State Fraternal Order of Police and others and that it was intended to protect first responders — including police and firefighters — from interference while performing lawful duties. He described the 25-foot warning, a subsequent warning to vacate the area and a set of prohibited behaviors that would support arrest after a warning.

Camille Bennett of Project Say Something testified in opposition, arguing the prohibition and the bill’s language track closely to existing Sections 13A-10-1 and 13A-10-2 of the Alabama criminal code and would be more restrictive than current law. Bennett said lines in the bill that ban approaching within 25 feet and criminalize “direct abusive or obscene language” risk unlawfully restricting First Amendment-protected protest activity and could prevent third-party recordings at scenes.

Everett Johnson testified in support, saying the Fraternal Order of Police and others favor the bill because of a perceived increase in violence and interference with first responders; he said the measure would protect officers and citizens at scenes where crowds gather.

Committee member Representative England raised constitutional and prosecutorial concerns about paragraph 4 of the bill, which criminalizes “direct abusive or obscene language” after a lawful order. England and others worried the language is vague and could allow arrests for protected speech; England asked whether the sponsor would accept removing that element. Representative Treadaway said he was open to discussion and invited work with stakeholders.

Jeff Bradley, general counsel for the Office of Prosecution Services, explained enforcement would require proof of multiple elements: the person’s proximity within the 25-foot zone, that the person received and refused a lawful order to vacate, and then engaged in one of the enumerated acts. Bradley said whether those elements can be proven would depend on the facts, witness credibility and available evidence such as body-camera recordings. He noted that 25 feet is slightly less than 10 yards.

Members debated enforcement practicality and the risk of arresting individuals for speech within or beyond the 25-foot threshold. Several members urged narrowing the bill to focus on acts that constitute actual interference (impeding, threatening, physical contact) rather than verbal abuse alone. Representative Treadaway said he would work with the District Attorneys Association and committee members on revisions and return with possible amendments.

No committee vote on HB2024 occurred during the hearing. The committee closed the public hearing and adjourned after members agreed to continue work on language and potential amendments before returning to the item.