Multiple HALO bills are currently pending before the South Carolina General Assembly, including H.3535, S.175, and H.4763. Each proposal establishes a clearly defined 25-foot safety perimeter around first responders who are actively performing lawful duties after a verbal warning has been issued.

HALO stands for Helping Alleviate Lawful Obstruction. The purpose of this legislation is to define what “stand back” means in measurable, enforceable terms during active emergency situations. When first responders are engaged in traffic stops, arrests, medical calls, fire suppression, or other emergency duties, clarity about proximity promotes safety for everyone present.

Senate Bill 175 has already advanced out of subcommittee and now moves to full committee consideration. The issue is squarely before the General Assembly. The discussion should focus on structure, constitutionality, operational necessity, and public safety.

South Carolina has the benefit of observing how similar laws have fared nationwide. Several states enacted buffer or HALO-style legislation in recent years. Courts have blocked some versions. Other versions remain in effect. The determining factor has been drafting precision.

Arizona’s early buffer law was struck down. Indiana’s law was invalidated by a federal appeals court. Louisiana’s measure was enjoined. Tennessee’s law remains under challenge. Courts reviewing those statutes focused on vagueness, breadth, and the absence of clear enforcement triggers.

At the same time, Florida, Georgia, Alabama, and Oklahoma enacted more narrowly tailored versions that have not been struck down. Those statutes include specific distance measurements, warning requirements, and intent standards.

The lesson is not that safety perimeters are unconstitutional. The lesson is that specificity matters.

The Structure of South Carolina’s HALO Bills

The HALO bills pending in South Carolina are structured with constitutional guardrails.

They require:

• A verbal warning before enforcement.
• A defined 25-foot safety perimeter.
• An intent element requiring interference, obstruction, threat, or harassment.
• Application only while a first responder is performing lawful duties.
• A limited misdemeanor penalty.

Each of these elements is deliberate.

The verbal warning requirement ensures that individuals are first directed to maintain distance. Enforcement follows refusal, not mere proximity.

The intent requirement narrows the application to purposeful interference. Accidental presence or passive observation does not trigger enforcement.

The defined distance eliminates ambiguity. Officers, courts, and citizens have a measurable standard.

The limited misdemeanor classification reflects proportionality.

This is not a blanket exclusion zone. It is a narrowly tailored safety buffer activated only after warning and tied to interference.

Constitutional Considerations and First Amendment Balance

The right to record law enforcement in public is well established. South Carolina law recognizes that right. The South Carolina Fraternal Order of Police wholeheartedly supports it.

Recording law enforcement activity is lawful.

Cops love cameras.

Body-worn cameras are now standard across agencies in this state. Officers rely on them daily. Video preserves context. It protects officers from false accusations. It strengthens prosecutions. It enhances transparency and accountability.

Citizen video often reinforces the same evidence.

The constitutional question is not whether recording is permitted. It is whether the state may define a reasonable safety perimeter to ensure officers can perform lawful duties without obstruction.

Courts balance expressive rights with legitimate public safety interests. A law that prohibits recording would face immediate constitutional difficulty. A law that defines distance after warning and requires intent to interfere addresses a different concern.

Modern recording devices function clearly from well beyond 25 feet. A defined safety buffer does not eliminate observation. It does not prevent documentation. It does not silence criticism.

It establishes space.

The pending HALO bills respect constitutional rights while reinforcing safety.

Existing South Carolina Statutes Do Not Define Proximity

South Carolina law contains statutes addressing resisting arrest under Section 16-9-320, obstruction-related conduct, breach of peace, and disorderly conduct.

These statutes address escalation.

They do not define proximity.

Resisting arrest applies when an individual actively resists lawful arrest or legal process. It requires conduct that meets a defined threshold.

Obstruction statutes generally involve interference with the administration of justice. They do not establish a reactionary gap at a dynamic emergency scene.

Breach of peace and disorderly conduct require disruptive conduct affecting public order. They do not define how far is sufficient when officers instruct individuals to stand back.

The absence of a defined safety perimeter leaves the meaning of “stand back” subjective. Subjectivity increases confrontation. Defined standards reduce it.

The HALO legislation complements existing law by defining a measurable boundary before escalation occurs.

Prevention and escalation are distinct stages. Current statutes address escalation. The HALO bills address prevention.

Operational Realities at Emergency Scenes

Emergency scenes are fluid environments. Traffic stops can evolve rapidly. Arrest situations draw attention. Medical calls often involve emotional bystanders. Fire scenes attract crowds.

When individuals crowd a scene, first responders must divide attention between the primary task and the surrounding encroachment. Divided attention increases risk.

Officers engaged in physical control of a suspect require space. Firefighters operating hose lines require space. Paramedics providing life-saving treatment require stability and perimeter integrity.

Encroachment increases the risk of accidental exposure to force tools, unintended physical contact, or injury.

A clearly defined 25-foot perimeter provides a reactionary gap. It preserves operational control.

This is not about authority for its own sake. It is about scene management and public safety.

Addressing Common Objections

Some argue that existing authority is sufficient. Existing authority addresses higher-level interference and assaultive behavior. It does not define proximity in advance of escalation.

Some argue that buffer legislation is intended to shield misconduct. Recording remains lawful. Body-worn cameras are standard. Video evidence remains admissible. Transparency culture is firmly established in South Carolina law enforcement.

Some argue that the 25-foot measurement is arbitrary. Defined distances provide clarity. Undefined commands create dispute. The 25-foot standard aligns with statutes in other states that have survived scrutiny. A measurable distance strengthens enforceability.

Some argue that such laws may be selectively enforced. The warning requirement and intent requirement narrow the application. Video documentation provides oversight. Judicial review remains available.

Some argue that buffer legislation will increase tension. Clear standards reduce argument. When expectations are defined in statute, compliance becomes measurable, and confrontation decreases.

The focus of the HALO bills is interference with first responders performing lawful duties after warning. Peaceful protest, passive observation, and lawful recording remain protected.

National Litigation Trends and Lessons Learned

Courts examining buffer statutes have emphasized the importance of clarity and narrow tailoring.

Statutes that lacked precise definitions or appeared to criminalize passive recording were vulnerable.

Statutes that required warning, defined distance, and included intent standards have proven more durable.

South Carolina’s pending legislation reflects those lessons.

The state has the opportunity to enact a narrowly tailored law informed by prior judicial review rather than repeating earlier drafting mistakes seen elsewhere.

Public Safety, Transparency, and Stability

Public safety and transparency are not competing values.

Body-worn cameras document interactions. Citizen video supplements documentation. Defined safety perimeters reduce chaos. Reduced chaos protects both responders and civilians.

Clarity promotes stability.

Stability protects rights.

The HALO bills currently pending before the General Assembly provide measurable standards grounded in operational reality and constitutional structure.

All first responders deserve a clearly defined safety perimeter.

Contact your Senator and urge support for HALO legislation currently before the South Carolina General Assembly.