Committee weighs 25‑foot 'buffer zone' draft after testimony from Indiana sponsors

The Law and Justice Interim Committee reviewed provisional draft legislation (LJIC‑PD3) that would create an offense for obstructing first responders who have issued a verbal warning to move back from an emergency incident area. The committee heard in‑person testimony from the draft’s sponsors from Indiana and multiple Montana stakeholders before agreeing to refine language.

Miss Shirley, staff to the committee, explained the draft’s elements and sources: it defines “emergency incident area” either as the area marked by responders or as 25 feet in every direction (or a larger specified distance), borrows the first‑responder definition from Montana’s Help Save Lives from Overdose Act (title 50) and uses wording modeled on Florida, Indiana and other states’ halo/encroachment laws. The draft generally classifies failure to obey a warning as a misdemeanor.

Representative Wendy McNamara and Senator—an Indiana sponsor—described the bill’s origins in Indiana. They said the 25‑foot limit reflects a long‑used reactionary gap in officer training and noted that charging and courts raised constitutional concerns that larger distances and vague definitions can trigger. They urged simple, targeted definitions: an officer should have to reasonably believe the person’s presence will interfere with lawful duties; the statute should expressly protect lawful recording and observation; and a clear stop‑approach order with a knowingly or intentionally continuing approach should be the culpable conduct.

Law enforcement groups — including Celine Koepke representing the Montana Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association and Shelby DeMars of the Montana Police Protective Association — testified in support and urged including all first responders (EMS, firefighters, corrections) in the statutory definition and reusing a single statutory definition where possible. Committee staff read two existing Montana definitions (15‑6‑301 and 50‑32‑603) and noted the Help Save Lives from Overdose Act excludes emergency care providers, a detail the committee said it would reconcile.

Committee members raised First Amendment concerns about restricting recording or observation in public, noting prior court challenges in other jurisdictions. Several legislators recommended replacing “harass” with an operational interference standard — for example, where the officer reasonably believes the person within the buffer will interfere with duties — and adding an affirmative defense where an order was not received or understood.

Outcome: committee members directed Miss Shirley to work with the Montana Police Protective Association and Sheriffs’ Association to draft revised language focused on operational interference, to clarify the first‑responder definition, and to explicitly protect recording and lawful observation. No vote was taken; the draft will return to the committee with edited language.

What to watch: the committee flagged the June deadline for staff work and plans to test any revised language for constitutional vulnerability and practical enforceability before advancing it to session.