'Buffer zone' on working first responders from civilians unanimously approved by Nassau lawmakers

Buffer zones will be introduced around working first responders in Nassau County under a measure county legislators approved Wednesday.

The First Responder Zone of Protection Act gives working police officers, firefighters, emergency responders and probation officers the option of issuing a warning to civilians to step at least 15 feet away. People who ignore a warning to step back will face a misdemeanor charge punishable by a $1,000 fine, 1 year in prison or both. The measure’s authors say it is intended to protect responders from "threats, harassment, and physical interference while on the job."

Republican legislators pushed introduction of the bill earlier this month, but the measure also drew support from Legis. Seth Koslow (D-Merrick), the Democratic challenger to Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman, a Republican, in the November election.

On Tuesday, the county attorney in an eight-page memo said the measure was legal under state and federal laws, balancing "safety concerns for First Responders and others with the constitutional rights of bystanders and witnesses who wish to observe and/or record the actions of First Responders."

The vote on Wednesday was unanimous. Blakeman had requested lawmakers to pass the resolution, which would be effective immediately after he signs it into law.

Some legal experts have said the measure would make it harder to scrutinize police activity and could be unconstitutional. "The only question is whether this is going to be invalidated in the first challenge or invalidated when applied to some particular fact situation," said Hofstra University Law professor Eric M. Freedman. "The Supreme Court, in Houston v. Hill, in 1987, explained that there are limitations on a statute that tries to criminalize, as obstructing performance of one’s duties, objecting to the conduct of police."

A "narrowly drawn statute that forbids physical obstruction would be fine," Freedman said, but the Nassau measure "is an example of one of these overbroad statutes in which any defiance of what police believe to be their lawful authority is classified as obstruction."

Supporters of the legislation, though, said it was a needed safety measure. "Most of the time it's interference that comes from the outside is what causes our problems," Nassau Police Commissioner Patrick J. Ryder said. "They approach us, we turn, we lose control ... they're up there in our faces, screaming and yelling." Ryder added: "We'll do what we got to do and we'll explain what happened afterwards."

Koslow said his experience as a prosecutor convinced him of the need for the legislation. He said, "I saw countless bodycam videos of police officers, EMTs, firefighters who were trying to do their jobs, and they get distracted or they get attacked by people who think they're trying to help, and they're really just hurting the situation."

Amendments to the bill say that a responder who "reasonably believes" a bystander may threaten them or interfere with their work can issue a warning. The measure is not intended to "prevent the right of the public to photograph or video" a responder at work.

But Jeremy Joseph, a member of the steering committee of the advocacy organization Long Island United to Transform Policing and Community Safety, said the measure left important practical questions unanswered: "How do we define a high-stress situation for officers ... Is a police officer going to stand there with a measuring tape and decide who's in the buffer zone?"

The measure also drew condemnation from NYCLU. In a statement, Justin Harrison, the group's senior policy counsel, said "floating buffer zones offer yet another way for police to keep their activities hidden from public scrutiny." 

He said, "Laws that make it harder to monitor the police don’t make anybody safer — in reality, they violate the Constitution, run counter to government transparency principles, and foster distrust in law enforcement. Courts across the country, including in Arizona, Indiana, and Louisiana, have already struck down similar laws.”