Indiana’s “Buffer Law” Faces Continued Legal Challenge, Court cites “Bad Breakfast” Scenario

Indianapolis, IN – June 30, 2025 – A pair of Indiana laws granting broad authority to police to order individuals away from officers, even without reasonable suspicion, have again been deemed likely unconstitutional by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The ruling, issued today, upholds a district court injunction preventing enforcement of the laws, initially passed in April 2024, and highlights concerns about potential abuse of power.

The laws, House Bill 1188 and Senate Bill 3, were challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of indiana and the Reporters committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP) on First and Fourteenth Amendment grounds.Plaintiffs argued the laws effectively criminalized the act of observing and recording police activity, chilling free speech and violating due process. The core issue revolves around the laws’ language allowing officers to compel individuals to disperse from an area if the officer deems it necessary for “conducting their official duties.”

During legal proceedings,government counsel conceded that an officer could invoke the law for any reason,including a subjective one like having a “bad breakfast.” This admission, highlighted by the Seventh Circuit, underscored the lack of objective standards and potential for arbitrary enforcement. The court specifically noted the Fourteenth Amendment does not permit arrest simply because an officer is having a poor morning, referencing “bitter coffee or soggy scrambled eggs.”

The initial injunction applied to only two Indiana counties – Marion and Johnson – where enforcement had been actively threatened.The current ruling sends the case back to the district court to reconsider the scope of the injunction following a recent Supreme Court decision limiting nationwide injunctions. This means the injunction may now be narrowed to only cover those two counties, potentially allowing enforcement in the remaining 90 counties until similar legal challenges are brought forth.

Context: The Rise of “Buffer Zone” Laws and Filming Police

Indiana’s laws are part of a growing national trend of legislation aimed at restricting proximity to law enforcement officers.Proponents argue thes “buffer zone” laws are designed to enhance officer safety and prevent interference with investigations.However, civil liberties advocates contend they are thinly veiled attempts to suppress public scrutiny of police actions, notably the recording of officers on duty.

The right to film police officers in public is generally protected under the First Amendment, as affirmed by numerous court decisions. However, states have been increasingly attempting to create legal gray areas thru legislation like Indiana’s, raising concerns about the erosion of police accountability. the RCFP has been actively tracking and challenging such laws across the country, arguing they impede the vital role of the press and the public in documenting police conduct.

The case is Doe v. Rokita, no. 24-1783 (7th Cir.). The ACLU of Indiana is represented by Ken Falk,and the RCFP is represented by Paul W. Hughes. Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita is defending the state.

Filed Under: 14th amendment, 1st amendment, 7th circuit, filming police, indiana, police accountability

Companies: reporters committee for freedom of the press