Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the First Responders topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate passes 'Halo Act' creating 25-foot buffer around first responders; critics warn of constitutional risks
Summary
Senate Bill 104, known as the "Halo Act," passed by a 32–6 vote after floor debate. Sponsors said it protects EMTs and other first responders; opponents warned similar laws in other states have been enjoined on First Amendment grounds and argued the bill is vague and could enable arbitrary enforcement.
The Kentucky Senate on Feb. 19 passed Senate Bill 104, commonly referred to on the floor as the "Halo Act," creating a 25-foot safety buffer around first responders performing their official duties.
Sponsor Senator from Scott said the measure was prompted by accounts from emergency medical technicians and that the buffer is intended to help first responders work without interference. "It creates a 25 foot safety barrier around first responders while they are trying to perform their official duties," the sponsor said, urging colleagues to support the bill.
Opponents questioned the need for a new statute and raised constitutional concerns. One senator arguing against passage said similar laws filed in at least five other states have been enjoined in several jurisdictions on First Amendment grounds, calling the bill "vague" and warning it could enable arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement. The critic said courts require criminal offenses be defined with sufficient definiteness to allow ordinary people to understand what conduct is prohibited and to avoid arbitrary enforcement.
Other senators in favor said the bill preserves the public's ability to observe and document events at a safe distance and that the buffer would not prevent lawful protest activity so long as people remain outside the 25-foot zone. The record shows supporters stressed that the bill protects the ability of first responders to provide timely care.
Several senators explained their votes on the floor. One lawmaker who voted against the bill emphasized that the "no" vote was not against first responders, but based on a belief that current statutes already provide tools to address interference with emergency responders. Another senator who supported the bill said language in the bill giving protection only when a first responder is engaged in "lawful performance of his and her duties" gave comfort that protections apply only in lawful contexts.
The clerk recorded 32 yeas and 6 nays; Senate Bill 104 was passed.
The floor debate included extended discussion of constitutional limits and enforcement practices. The bill's next steps are enrollment and transmission as required by legislative procedure.
