Supporters of a new law setting a 25-foot perimeter around police activity say it is aimed at keeping law enforcement safe, while those opposed saying the measure only serves to increase mistrust of police and will open up departments throughout the state to lawsuits.

Gov. Eric Holcomb signed House Bill 1186 on Thursday, enshrining the encroachment on investigations bill into law. The measure allows police to set up a 25-foot perimeter while conducting police activity. The legislation mirrors a similar law enacted in Arizona establishing an 8-foot perimeter. The law was blocked by a federal judge.

In September, Republican leaders of the Arizona Legislature said they would not try to defend the new law, ending the fight over the proposal after law was challenged by news media organizations and the American Civil Liberties Union, according to the Associated Press.

Police officials say the 25-foot perimeter to ensure the safety of officers, but Indiana’s top cop said the legislation will be very difficult to enforce. Law enforcement officers already have a tremendous amount of authority and tools at their disposal, Indiana State Police Superintendent Douglas Carter said.

“So, it’s going to be about how this is used,” Carter said.

Law enforcement needs to take many factors into account when considering whether to enforce the new 25-foot perimeter such as space, where the incident is occurring, the number of people present and what was the initial call for service.

“I don’t think it will be something used often. I can see some value in it in some circumstances,” Carter said. He questioned who would measure the 25 feet perimeter and what would happen if a person was 24 feet away from police activity.

“I understand why they tried to do this. I also understand on the law enforcement side those that could be in support,” Carter said. He is not 100 percent sure the new law is the answer.

“I also think de-escalation is really, really important,” Carter said.

Law enforcement often deals with people when they are experiencing the worse day of their lives. He is unsure of the threat of arrest to family or bystanders is the right thing to do during that time.

Carter said the murder of George Floyd, a moment captured on cell phone video by bystanders, changed everything for him regarding his profession. It is a moment, he said, that moving forward forever changed law enforcement in this country.

“We have got to grab ahold of this profession and not let it run astray,” Carter said. Like so many police leaders, he knows the majority of the men and women who put on the uniform are honest people who are trying to serve. Past failures to address bad actors within departments have led to public distrust and police need to do a better job policing their own.

“The good news is almost all police actions now are recorded,” Carter said.

Police dashboard and body cameras are much more common and the proliferation of smart devices means police encounters also are commonly recorded by the public. He said transparency is important to building up trust moving forward.

“I think the way in which law enforcement officers look is important. I do not like the militarization of law enforcement in this country,” Carter said.

The superintendent has strong opinions about the appearance of law enforcement, a view he said sometimes finds him at odds with the wants of the rank-and-file. Carter does not allow visible tattoos or beards. It is all about perception, he says.

“We should have learned through George Floyd the perception of who we are matters,” Carter said.

State Sen. Rodney Pol, D-Chesterton, said he understands the intention of the bill was to help law enforcement, but he worries it may cause more harm than good. Pol, too, said part of the problem is perception.

“My worry is that it will probably cause some distrust, I think unfortunately, even if it is being used appropriately,” Pol said.

Opponents say the measure would infringe on the public’s established right to film police activity and is a way to hide police misdeeds in the wake of high-profile incidents captured by cell phone cameras.

People who may have had a negative experience with police, or who know someone who had a bad experience, may feel the legislation is being used by law enforcement to shield their activities from the public view, Pol said.

“(The public) may feel the power to keep people away is misused and that is more harmful to a police department than the idea of things being done in a transparent way,” Pol said.

As an attorney, he finds the language of the legislation as approved problematic, as well. There is no limit to what a 25-foot perimeter can mean and whether it is limited only to active arrests. If an officer has established a perimeter and moves toward people, Pol questioned whether the people would in turn have to move to avoid being closer than 25 feet.

He expects the law to be challenged once someone is arrested. He would have preferred the language exclude a specific distance designation, which he said will create opportunity for legal challenges that could wind up costly for communities.

“It’s a good intent. We want to make sure officers are safe,” Pol said.

Anthony Fargo, an Associate Professor and director of the Center for International Media Law and Policy Studies at Indiana University in Bloomington, said different situations might call for different reasonable accommodations and that could be difficult with a hard and fast rule on distance.

“They kind of limitations are always problematic because they are largely arbitrary,” Fargo said, adding these kinds of laws leave a lot of room for police discretion. “We don’t go around carrying tape measures that go 25 feet.”

Federal courts on numerous occasions over the past 10 years or so have dealt with a number of cases of people being arrested for photographing the police while they are out doing their jobs in public, he said.

“Pretty much in all of those cases it was determined people have the First Amendment right to observe and photograph police when they are out doing their job … as long as you are not interfering with police or endangering them,” Fargo said. Photographing or recording police is not considered interference, he said.

Instead of create a specific footage it would be reasonable to set up a needed perimeter in the boundaries already established in law that no one is to interfere with police, he said. It would also help to make some sort of attempt to define what interfere means, so long as it does not include photographing and watching police from a safe distance.

He said there has been a little bit of backlash across the country among law enforcement because now everybody has a camera on them and suddenly police are finding themselves being filmed whenever they are out doing their jobs. In some states, Fargo said he has seen police officers lobbying for new laws that would for example make photographing them in public a violation of their privacy.

“It’s kind of hard to argue a right to privacy when you are out in public,” Fargo said.

Once inside a building, the 25-foot encroachment legislation raises a much higher level of problematic issues, Fargo said.

Indoors enforcement would require a different solution. It would be a much harder argument to make that a person does not have a right to film or watch what is going on in their own home regardless the 25-foot rule, he said, adding some type of exception will have to be made for indoors or the courts will carve out that exception.

Fargo said he would have liked to see an exception for the media in a law like this, but that creates a problem with the definition of who is in the media.

Often arrests regarding interfering with police can be attributed to insufficient training or too many things going on, causing hypervigilance and overreaction. Fargo said emotions sometimes run high, and if the person thought for five more seconds ‘is this really interfering with me?’ the results could be different.

“You have to pick your battles in these situations. Oftentimes, it’s so fluid I’m wary of hard and fast rules,” Fargo said. The legislation is trying to set a rule for situations that should be determined on a case-by-case basis. He questioned whether the distance should be the same, for example, during a shoplifting arrest versus an active shooter situation.

“Basically this sets police departments up for one lawsuit after another for arresting people who will say I was 25 and a half feed away. Where do you basically draw the line? It’s really difficult,” Fargo said.

Lake County Sheriff Oscar Martinez said keeping officers safe has become more difficult as more and more people cue up to watch police activity. He supports the right to record but says a balance needs to be struck to keep officers safe.

“I’m a big supporter of the first amendment right to record. It’s getting out of control how close individuals get and the distraction that causes for officers,” Martinez said.

It is difficult for a police officer concentrating on an arrest to know the true intention of someone behind a camera. That person could jeopardize the safety of officers, the suspect of the public in general.

“I believe the Indiana law calling for 25 feet is reasonable,” Martinez said. It is a distance that will help keep officers safe but is close enough to allow for filming, he said.

“I think that 25 feet allows enough distance for an officer to react if he sees any dangers and have enough time to respond,” Martinez said.

He said he sees the law being applied more in outdoor spaces and not inside someone’s home and during arrests, traffic stops, interviewing someone and conducting official duties and not think those duties will include things like patrolling at a festival or just standing in public space.

“In the aspect of officer safety, I’m in support of this. I’m a supporter of people’s right to record officers. I encourage that. Even though there are body cams in car cameras, citizens have a right. I just ask you stay a safe distance and allow him to conduct his duties,” Martinez said.

Gary Interim Police Chief and ISP Major Jerry Williams said he too supports the law and its intention to help keep officers safe. He said studies have shown it takes 21 feet to respond a suspect charging with a knife, so the 25-foot perimeter is fair.

Williams said police will have to use discretion, especially when dealing with people in their homes and supports the right the public has to record police doing their jobs. Like Superintendent Carter and others, Williams said police have a perception problem and it is important they operate transparently. Dashboard and body cameras — tools being implemented beginning this month by the Gary Police Department — will help increase transparency and improve public trust.

Recordings have played an important role in holding bad police accountable and that is something the rank-and-file supports, he said.

Williams said good officers do not want to see their efforts betrayed by officers who abuse their power. Recordings make it easier to hold those who violate the public trust accountable.

Attorney Christopher Cooper, who has offices in Griffith and Chicago, also sees problems with the law. Cooper is a former police officer who often represents police and fire personnel in employment and criminal matters.

“Such a bill in my opinion is unconstitutional,” Cooper said.

Like Fargo and Sen. Pol, Cooper said the number of feet will be subject to myriad of interpretations which will mean that people will be arrested for simply exercising their right to walk where they want to walk.

“What if your house is down the street from the crime scene? What if the officer thinks you’re within 25 feet and it turns out later you were within 26 feet? What if you’re deaf or what if you don’t hear the officer because you’re on your phone or for some other reason? What if your son or daughter has been shot or stabbed or is stuck inside of a car that just crashed and you run to be by their side?” he asked.

“This is a bad, bad, bad law which will do nothing more than increase hostility between the police and citizens,” Cooper said.