South Carolina HALO Act — Is It Now a Crime to Stand Near Police?
A bill moving rapidly through the South Carolina legislature is generating the kind of constitutional debate that legal scholars, journalists, civil rights advocates, and ordinary citizens have not seen around a state law in years. The Helping Alleviate Lawful Obstruction Act — known by its acronym the HALO Act — would make it a misdemeanor crime punishable by up to 60 days in jail and a $500 fine to stand within 25 feet of a police officer, firefighter, or other first responder after receiving a verbal warning to step back. The bill passed the South Carolina House on March 4, 2026 by a 95-18 vote and is now on track for a Senate floor vote any day. Legal experts say it is almost certainly unconstitutional. Supporters say it is desperately needed. And everyone who has ever filmed a traffic stop, witnessed an arrest, or stood on a public sidewalk near emergency activity needs to understand exactly what is at stake.
What the HALO Act Actually Says
House Bill 4763 creates a new criminal offense in South Carolina. After a first responder — defined broadly to include law enforcement officers, firefighters, EMTs, and paramedics — issues a verbal warning to step back, any person who knowingly and willfully remains within 25 feet of that first responder with the intent to impede or interfere with their duties, threaten them, or cause them emotional distress commits a misdemeanor.
The phrase emotional distress in the bill's text has drawn particular attention from legal critics. Under the bill's language, a bystander who stands 20 feet from a police officer and vocally expresses displeasure with what they are witnessing — without any physical obstruction or interference — could potentially face arrest if a court finds their conduct caused the officer emotional distress. That is an extraordinarily vague standard that legal scholars say gives law enforcement officers essentially subjective authority to arrest anyone they find sufficiently irritating.
The bill contains no explicit exceptions for journalists covering breaking news. No exception for bystanders attempting to render first aid to an injured third party. No exception for neighbors standing in their own front yard that happens to be less than 25 feet from where a traffic stop is occurring. No exception for passengers in a vehicle being stopped who are automatically within 25 feet of the officer conducting the stop. These gaps are not oversights — they are precisely the provisions that civil rights organizations and constitutional scholars have identified as the most legally vulnerable elements of the law.
The Right to Film Police — What the Law Actually Protects
The constitutional right to record police officers performing their duties in public is not in dispute among federal courts. The First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits have all recognized that filming police is a constitutionally protected activity under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has not directly ruled on the question, but the lower court consensus is overwhelming and consistent — the public has a First Amendment right to observe and record law enforcement activity in public spaces.
The HALO Act does not explicitly prohibit filming. Supporters including lead sponsor Representative Melissa Oremus have repeatedly emphasized that the bill says nothing about videotaping and that a person can still exercise their rights to film or observe from 25 feet away. Critics respond that this framing misses the critical point. The practical effect of requiring filmers to stand 25 feet back in the chaotic, fast-moving circumstances of an active police encounter is to make meaningful documentation of officer conduct dramatically more difficult. A cell phone video of an arrest filmed from 25 feet in poor lighting under stress is not equivalent to the same video filmed from 10 feet. The Walter Scott case — the 2015 North Charleston shooting captured on video that led to murder charges against a South Carolina officer — was filmed from approximately 50 feet. But officers have now been warned that in the future, under the HALO Act, they can push witnesses even further back than that minimum.
What Has Happened in Other States — The Constitutional Track Record
South Carolina's HALO Act does not exist in a vacuum. Arizona, Florida, Georgia, and Indiana have all passed similar buffer zone laws creating varying distances — from 8 feet to 25 feet — around law enforcement officers or emergency scenes. The constitutional track record of those laws is a preview of what likely awaits the South Carolina legislation.
In Arizona, a federal judge blocked a law creating an 8-foot buffer zone around police within weeks of its enactment, finding it likely unconstitutional as applied to observers and journalists. In Indiana, a federal district court judge struck down a similar buffer zone law with notably pointed language — simply being within twenty-five feet of a police officer is not a crime, and indeed, important First Amendment rights are regularly exercised within twenty-five feet of law enforcement every single day. That specific language — from a ruling that the bill's opponents have repeatedly quoted in testimony before South Carolina lawmakers — directly parallels the 25-foot distance in the HALO Act.
Florida's version of a buffer zone law — passed in 2023 — has survived initial constitutional challenge but remains actively contested in the courts. The legal consensus among First Amendment scholars is that buffer zone laws around police activity face an exceptionally difficult constitutional path because they restrict activity in traditional public forums — streets, sidewalks, and public spaces where First Amendment protections are at their strongest.
The Emotional Distress Provision — The Most Controversial Element
The provision that has generated the most concern among legal experts is the bill's inclusion of emotional distress as one of the prohibited intents. Under the bill's language, a person who stands within 25 feet of a police officer after a warning with the intent to cause the officer emotional distress commits a crime.
Legal scholars point out that emotional distress is a standard borrowed from tort law — the area of civil law governing lawsuits between private parties — and that importing it into criminal law creates serious problems. The standard for intentional infliction of emotional distress in civil lawsuits requires conduct that is outrageous — conduct so extreme and beyond all bounds of decency that reasonable people would find it truly outrageous. That standard has never been applied to verbal criticism of police officers, political protest, or the act of filming government officials.
Seth Stoughton, a law professor at the University of South Carolina who studies police law and testified before the legislature about the bill, explained the constitutional problem clearly. When it comes to protected free speech, the judicial system is extremely skeptical of what is known as prior restraint — anything that may stop someone from speaking out of fear of legal repercussions. Any law that may impede speech must be narrow in scope. The HALO Act, in his assessment, does not meet that standard.
What Happens If It Becomes Law
The HALO Act has passed the South Carolina House by a lopsided margin and is advancing rapidly in the Senate. If it passes the Senate and is signed by Governor Henry McMaster — who has given no indication he would veto it — it will take effect as South Carolina law immediately. Civil rights organizations including the ACLU of South Carolina have already signaled they will challenge it in federal court if it passes. The litigation process that would follow is familiar from other states' experience with buffer zone laws — a temporary restraining order to block enforcement would likely be sought immediately, followed by a preliminary injunction hearing, and eventually a full constitutional challenge in federal district court.
The most likely outcome if the law is challenged is that a federal court will issue an injunction blocking enforcement while the case proceeds — meaning the law would be on the books but unenforceable for an extended period while courts work through the constitutional questions. Whether the law ultimately survives constitutional scrutiny depends on how broadly South Carolina courts construe its intent requirements and whether the emotional distress provision can be narrowed or severed from the rest of the law.
For complete details on the HALO Act's current legislative status in the South Carolina Senate and how to contact your state senator about the bill, the ACLU of South Carolina at aclusc.org maintains daily updates on the legislation and provides direct tools for contacting legislators. Constitutional analysis of the First Amendment issues raised by police buffer zone laws across the United States is available through advocatekiran.com.
The HALO Act is a test of a proposition that has been tested repeatedly in American courts and has repeatedly failed — that the government can create buffer zones around law enforcement activity in public spaces that meaningfully restrict the ability of ordinary citizens to observe, document, and respond to what they see. The courts that have struck down similar laws did not do so because they were indifferent to officer safety. They did so because the Constitution does not permit the government to make witnessing a crime.
Recommended: Measles Outbreak 2026 — 800 Cases in 23 States and Your Legal Rights
Post a Comment