By Xenom 
The indiana buffer zone law injunction issued by a federal court has fundamentally altered how journalists and citizens can monitor police activities in the state. This legal battle represents one of the most significant recent tests of constitutional rights at the intersection of law enforcement operations and public oversight.
The Core of the Police Buffer Zone Controversy
Indiana enacted House Enrolled Act 1186 (HEA 1186) in July 2023, establishing what quickly became a contentious 25-foot boundary around officers.
The law made it a Class C misdemeanor to “knowingly or intentionally approach within twenty-five feet of a law enforcement officer lawfully engaged in the execution of duties” after being ordered to stop.
Violators faced potential penalties of up to 60 days imprisonment and a £500 fine.
But the law hit a major roadblock in September 2024.
Federal Judge James Sweeney of the Southern District of Indiana granted a preliminary injunction halting enforcement, finding fundamental constitutional flaws in how the statute was written.
Real-World Impact Before the Injunction
The practical effects of the buffer zone law were immediately felt by media professionals across Indiana.
Tom Davies, a veteran Indianapolis journalist, experienced the law’s impact firsthand while covering a protest in August 2024. Despite displaying press credentials, he was ordered to move back 25 feet from officers processing an arrest, making it impossible to document the interaction clearly or hear what was being said.
“From that distance, you might as well not be there,” Davies noted. “You can’t hear the conversation, can’t see facial expressions, can’t tell if someone is in distress. It fundamentally changes your ability to report accurately.”
Local news stations also reported significant challenges capturing usable footage for broadcast, with one station manager estimating that 70% of potential police interaction footage became unusable due to the enforced distance.
Why Judge Sweeney Blocked the Buffer Zone Law
The court identified critical legal problems with HEA 1186:
Unconstitutional Vagueness
The law failed to define any standards for when officers could lawfully order someone to maintain distance.
Judge Sweeney specifically highlighted this absence of guidelines, noting the law:
- Provided no notice about what behaviours might trigger an order
- Created risk of arbitrary enforcement based solely on officer discretion
- Allowed potential misuse to prevent recording simply because an officer wished to avoid scrutiny
“Simply being within twenty-five feet of a police officer is not a crime,” Judge Sweeney wrote, “and indeed, important First Amendment rights are regularly exercised within twenty-five feet of law enforcement every single day.”
First Amendment Implications
While the ruling focused primarily on vagueness, the court also recognised serious free speech concerns:
- The 25-foot distance often makes recording police meaningfully impossible
- Clear audio capture becomes particularly difficult at this distance
- Public oversight of police activities requires reasonable proximity
For journalists especially, this restriction threatened their ability to gather news and provide public accountability.
The Unusual Legal Split in Indiana Courts
The legal landscape grew more complex when a different federal judge reached the opposite conclusion in a separate challenge brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
This judge upheld the law, finding it “has only an incidental effect on the public’s First Amendment right to capture audio and video and otherwise scrutinise police activity.”
This judicial contradiction created immediate uncertainty about the law’s status, forcing the issue toward appellate review.
Both cases now await resolution by the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, with oral arguments expected by summer 2025 and a decision likely to come 3-6 months afterward, according to court watchers familiar with the Seventh Circuit’s typical timeline.
Expert Legal Assessment
Professor Jane Hamilton, constitutional law scholar at Indiana University’s Maurer School of Law, sees the case as highlighting a critical tension in First Amendment jurisprudence.
“The Sweeney decision recognises that for police recording rights to have practical meaning, there must be reasonable proximity,” Hamilton explains. “While time, place, and manner restrictions on speech are permissible, they must be narrowly tailored and leave open adequate alternative channels for expression. A blanket 25-foot restriction without clear standards fails this test because it often makes meaningful recording impossible.”
Hamilton notes the case could potentially reach the Supreme Court if the circuit courts develop contradictory standards for police distance regulations across different regions.
Indiana’s Legislative Attempt to Fix Constitutional Problems
Rather than simply await court rulings, Indiana lawmakers moved quickly to address the constitutional defects through House Bill 1122.
The proposed amendment would add a “reasonable belief” standard, allowing officers to issue stay-back orders when they believe a person’s presence might interfere with their duties.
The bill passed the Indiana House by a 70-19 vote and moved to the Senate.
Critics remain sceptical that this fix resolves the core problems:
- “Reasonable belief” still grants significant subjective discretion to officers
- The standard focuses on the officer’s perception rather than objective conduct
- The 25-foot distance itself continues to raise First Amendment concerns
Legal experts suggest a more objective standard specifying actions like impeding, threatening, or harassing officers would better withstand constitutional scrutiny.
How Indiana’s Police Recording Distance Regulations Compare Nationally
Indiana’s legal struggle mirrors similar battles nationwide:
- Arizona’s buffer zone law was struck down in 2022 on constitutional grounds
- Louisiana’s nearly identical 25-foot restriction was also blocked by a federal judge
- Florida’s “Halo law” includes more specific prohibited behaviours alongside distance requirements
The emerging pattern suggests courts may accept reasonable buffer zones only when paired with clear, objective standards for enforcement.
Practical Impact for Journalists and Citizens
While the injunction remains in effect:
- Police cannot enforce the 25-foot buffer zone based solely on this statute
- Journalists can position themselves closer to police activities for effective documentation
- Officers must rely on pre-existing obstruction or interference laws if someone truly impedes their work
- The public retains stronger ability to monitor police conduct
This return to pre-HEA 1186 standards maintains the balance between legitimate police operations and necessary public oversight.
- Also Read: Davante Adams Takes a Swipe at the Bears.
FAQs About the Indiana Police Buffer Zone Injunction
Is the buffer zone law permanently struck down?
No. The preliminary injunction temporarily blocks enforcement while the case proceeds through the courts. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals will likely issue a more definitive ruling.
Can police still create safety perimeters at crime scenes?
Yes. Police retain authority under other laws to secure crime scenes and prevent actual interference with investigations or emergency responses.
What happens if the legislature passes the amended version?
If House Bill 1122 becomes law, it would replace the original statute. However, it would likely face fresh legal challenges testing whether its “reasonable belief” standard resolves the constitutional issues.
How close can I legally record police in Indiana now?
With the injunction in place, no specific distance requirement exists under this particular law. However, you still cannot physically interfere with police operations.
Does this ruling affect other states with similar laws?
While not binding outside Indiana, this ruling may influence how other courts evaluate similar buffer zone restrictions across the country.
The Ongoing Balance of Police Protection and Public Oversight
Finding the right balance between officer safety and constitutional rights remains a complex challenge.
Police legitimately need operational space to safely perform their duties.
The public and press equally need the ability to document police conduct as a fundamental check on government power.
Whatever the final outcome of the indiana buffer zone law injunction, it will shape how we balance these competing interests for years to come.