RÉSUMÉ DIGEST
HB 85 2023 Regular Session Mike Johnson
Proposed law would have provided that no person shall knowingly or intentionally approach
within 25 feet of a law enforcement officer who is lawfully engaged in the execution of his
official duties after the law enforcement officer has ordered a person to stop approaching or
to retreat.
Proposed law would have defined "law enforcement officer" as any commissioned police
officer, sheriff, deputy sheriff, marshal, deputy marshal, correctional officer, probation and
parole officer, constable, wildlife enforcement agent, livestock brand inspector, forestry
officer, or state park warden.
Proposed law would have provided for a fine of not more than $500, imprisonment for not
more than 60 days, or both.
(Proposed to add R.S. 14:109)
VETO MESSAGE:
"House Bill 85 would have created the misdemeanor crime of approaching a law
enforcement officer lawfully engaged in law enforcement duties. The penalty for violating
the crime is a fine up to $500, imprisonment up to 60 days in jail, or both.
First, House Bill 85 is unnecessary since La. R.S. 14:329, which provides for the crime of
interfering with a law enforcement investigation. Enacted in August 2010, it carries a
penalty of 6 months in jail, a $500 fine, or both, when the offender intentionally interferes
with a police officer investigating the scene of a crime or the scene of an accident by refusing
to move or leave the immediate location of the crime or the accident when ordered to do so
by the law enforcement officer when the offender has reasonable grounds to believe the
officer is acting in the performance of his official duties.
Further, and perhaps unintentional, the effect of this bill were it to become law would be to
chill exercise of First Amendment rights and prevent bystanders from observing and
recording police action. Each of us has a constitutional right to freely observe public
servants as they function in public and within the course and scope of their official duties.
Observations of law enforcement, whether by witnesses to an incident with officers,
individuals interacting with officers, or members of the press, are invaluable in promoting
transparency.
Therefore, House Bill 85 is not needed and it will not become law.
For these reasons, I have vetoed the bill."