What Is the Supreme Court Ruling on Distance From Police?

There is no Supreme Court ruling on distance from police. The Court has never set a specific number of feet bystanders must keep from officers, and no federal statute does either. What governs the question instead is a combination of federal appellate decisions protecting the right to observe and record police in public, a small group of state “buffer zone” laws (most of which courts have blocked), and the ordinary authority of officers to give reasonable orders during active operations. How close you can lawfully stand depends on where you are, what the officer is doing, and whether a state statute applies.

What the Supreme Court Has and Has Not Decided

The Supreme Court has repeatedly declined to hear appeals in cases involving the right to record police, which has left the federal circuit courts to work out the rules on their own. There is no high-court precedent setting a minimum distance, defining when an officer may order a bystander back, or resolving the split in how states treat buffer zones.

The one closely related ruling worth knowing is Riley v. California (2014), in which the Court held unanimously that police generally cannot search the digital contents of a cell phone without a warrant, even during a lawful arrest.¹ That matters for anyone recording the police, because it means an officer who seizes your phone cannot browse your footage or delete it without first getting a warrant. But Riley says nothing about how far from an officer you need to stand.

What the Federal Circuits Have Ruled

Every federal appellate court that has taken up the question has concluded that recording police performing their duties in public is protected by the First Amendment. The First Circuit stated in Glik v. Cunniffe (2011) that filming government officials carrying out their responsibilities in a public space is “a basic, vital, and well-established liberty safeguarded by the First Amendment.”² The Third Circuit reached the same conclusion in Fields v. City of Philadelphia (2017), holding that “the First Amendment protects the act of photographing, filming, or otherwise recording police officers conducting their official duties in public.”³

The First, Third, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits have all upheld the right in some form, which together cover the large majority of the country. None of these rulings sets a specific distance. They establish instead that if you are in a public place and not interfering with police operations, you can observe and record.

State Buffer Zone Laws Do Set Numbers

Starting in 2022, several states began passing laws that set a specific minimum distance bystanders must keep from officers. These statutes are the closest thing to a hard numeric rule, and most of them have been immediately challenged in court.

Arizona (2022): Made it a crime to record police within 8 feet. A federal court permanently blocked the law as unconstitutional under the First Amendment.⁴
Indiana (2023): Set a 25-foot buffer zone. The Seventh Circuit upheld a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement in August 2025, finding the law unconstitutionally vague because it gives officers unlimited discretion to order anyone away for any reason. The court noted that under the law’s logic, “an officer could invoke the buffer law just because he had a bad breakfast.”⁵
Florida (2024): The “Halo Law” established a 25-foot buffer zone around first responders performing official duties. It explicitly allows recording from outside the zone but has drawn criticism for vague harassment language.
Louisiana (2024): Made it a misdemeanor to remain within 25 feet of an officer after being told to move back. A federal court issued a preliminary injunction in January 2025, calling the law “unconstitutionally void for vagueness.” The state has appealed to the Fifth Circuit.⁴
Tennessee (2025): Enacted a new law that media organizations challenged in federal court in July 2025. The case is ongoing.

Courts have blocked nearly every buffer zone law that has been challenged. The recurring problem, as the Seventh Circuit identified, is that these statutes hand officers unchecked discretion to push people away without any meaningful standard for when the order is justified. The ground is still shifting. If you live in a state with one of these laws, check whether an injunction is currently in effect before assuming the distance requirement is enforceable.

“Reasonable Distance” When No Buffer Law Applies

In states without a specific buffer statute, there is no magic number of feet. Courts evaluate the situation based on whether your presence actually interfered with police operations. The analysis sits inside the First Amendment framework of “time, place, and manner” restrictions: the government can limit where and how you exercise a right as long as the limits are reasonable, content-neutral, and leave you with alternative ways to observe or record.

Conduct that clearly crosses into interference:

Physical obstruction, such as stepping into an officer’s path, blocking a doorway, or standing where you prevent officers from reaching a suspect or vehicle.
Active disruption, such as shouting at officers during a confrontation, trying to intervene physically in an arrest, or drawing a crowd that creates a safety hazard.
Entering restricted areas, including crossing crime scene tape, walking into a cordoned-off accident scene, or ignoring a clearly established perimeter.

Standing silently on a public sidewalk and recording, even at relatively close range, is not interference. Holding up a phone is not obstruction. Officers sometimes argue that recording distracts them, but courts have consistently rejected that argument. Distraction caused by lawful observation is not the same as interference with operations.

When Officers Can Lawfully Order You Back

Even without a buffer statute, police have genuine authority to direct people away from certain areas. The order must be tied to a real operational need, not annoyance at being filmed. Common situations where a move-back order is legally justified:

Active arrests and physical confrontations, where officers need space to control a suspect safely and a bystander could be struck or caught in a struggle.
Traffic stops and accident scenes, where vehicles, broken glass, and unpredictable traffic create real dangers.
Crime scene preservation, where keeping bystanders out of the area protects evidence.
Emergency response involving fire, hazardous materials, or an active shooter.

The line runs between an order protecting a legitimate interest and one simply removing an unwanted audience. An officer who tells you to move 30 feet back from an active arrest is likely on solid ground. An officer who tells you to stop recording entirely, or to leave an area when you are already across the street, almost certainly is not.

Even when the order is wrong, complying in the moment and challenging it later is the safer course. Refusing a direct order, lawful or not, can lead to charges for obstruction of justice, disorderly conduct, or resisting arrest, which are typically misdemeanors at the state level but carry fines and possible jail time. Federal obstruction penalties under Chapter 73 of Title 18 can be far steeper; destroying or concealing evidence tied to a federal investigation can bring up to 20 years in prison.⁶ Step back, keep recording from the new position, and note the officer’s name and badge number. A wrongful order is far easier to challenge in court than a resisting-arrest charge is to beat.

If an Officer Takes Your Phone

Officers sometimes seize phones from people who are recording. Riley v. California controls what happens next: police may physically secure the phone to prevent destruction of evidence, but they cannot browse through it, view your footage, or delete recordings without a warrant.¹ The narrow exception is a genuine emergency, such as an imminent threat to someone’s life.

Federal law adds another layer. The Privacy Protection Act makes it unlawful for government officers to search for or seize materials held by someone who intends to disseminate information to the public, with limited exceptions for probable cause that the person committed a crime or for situations where seizure is necessary to prevent death or serious injury.⁷ Video and audio on a phone fall within the protected materials when you are recording with the intent to share the footage publicly.

One boundary worth knowing: the right to record outdoors does not automatically carry inside government buildings. Posted no-recording rules in police station interiors, courthouses, and secure facilities are generally enforceable, and violating them can lead to contempt charges or arrest. The sidewalk outside the building is a different matter and remains a public space where recording is protected.

1
Justia. Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014)
2
Justia Law. Glik v. Cunniffe, No. 10-1764 (1st Cir. 2011)
3
Justia Law. Fields v. City of Philadelphia, No. 16-1650 (3d Cir. 2017)
4
Montana State Legislature. Buffer Zone Law-Related Legislation in Other States
5
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Case No. 24-2927 (7th Cir. 2025)
6
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 U.S. Code 1519 – Destruction, Alteration, or Falsification of Records in Federal Investigations and Bankruptcy
7
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 42 U.S. Code 2000aa – Searches and Seizures by Government Officers