Military vehicles with the Washington, DC National Guard are parked near the Washington Monument on August 12, 2025 in Washington, DC.
Getty Images
A surge of law enforcement into Washington, DC has come with an outpouring of cell phone videos from observers. In one recent video, a collection of DC metro police and federal officers arrest a man who is holding a phone and talking with them. Other videos show police arresting food delivery drivers. And, most well-known, there is the footage of a man throwing a Subway sandwich at an officer.
With the President hinting that he could deploy more federal law enforcement and national guard to other American cities, there will be many more citizens and journalists recording. And in the past few years, federal courts have been clear that the First Amendment protects this activity and that laws to curtail recording are often unconstitutional.
The latest major decision comes from the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and strikes down an Indiana law. The “buffer law” from 2023 made it a crime for a person to approach within 25 feet of a law enforcement officer who is “lawfully engaged in the execution of the law enforcement officer’s duties after the law enforcement officer has ordered the person to stop approaching.”
The law was challenged by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and Indiana Broadcasters Association along with other reporter groups and news outlets. They were concerned that the law could prevent their own cameramen and reporters from covering law enforcement.
The court found that the law was arbitrary and could easily be applied in a discriminatory way. The buffer law does not provide any guidance for when officers can order people to stand 25 feet back. It can be used at any time or for any reason, giving officers an excuse to arrest someone who might be doing nothing criminal, in the words of the court, like “taking a morning stroll or merely walking up to an officer to ask for directions.”
During the oral argument for the case, one of the judges asked whether an officer could invoke the buffer law “because he had a bad breakfast.” The state attorney responded, “That would be permissible.”
When officers do arrest journalists or bystanders who are recording them, they risk a lawsuit over the First Amendment violation. Outside Houston, a citizen journalist is suing a local sheriff’s office over a 2023 arrest. A trial was held earlier this year, but a decision has not been made yet.
Actually interfering with police as they go about their job has always been against the law. There are times when bystanders need to follow police directions, at the least for their own safety. The right to record police does not mean that someone can go past police lines or get in the way of officers arriving at the scene. Recording does come with a responsibility to act reasonably.
Officers also need to remember that citizens recording police activity is a two-way street. Videos of police performing heroically are also likely to go viral. Recordings can protect officers who are administering the law while following the rules.
Indiana’s law is not the only one to be struck down in recent years. Arizona created a smaller 8-foot buffer law that was held unconstitutional and then permanently prohibited by the state. Earlier this year, a federal district court in Louisiana blocked enforcement of the state’s 25-foot buffer law. Florida has a law similar to Indiana’s and Louisiana’s that is probably ripe for challenge now. And despite all the rulings against these laws, one is being considered in Massachusetts.
Police have a job to do, so do reporters and citizens. Finally, the courts job is to ensure that government laws follow the Constitution. Federal law enforcement and national guard take an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution and they should expect to be recorded when they are ordered onto American streets.
Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2025/09/12/courts-keep-striking-down-barriers-to-recording-police/
