SB104 creates a new criminal offense in Kentucky for “impeding a first responder.” The bill defines first responder broadly to include the existing statutory definition and also adds probation and parole officers, university police officers, and airport police officers. It also defines “harass” for purposes of the new offense as intentionally engaging in conduct directed at a first responder that causes or is intended to cause substantial emotional distress and serves no legitimate purpose.
Under the bill, a person commits the offense if, after receiving a verbal warning not to approach from someone they know or reasonably should know is a first responder lawfully performing duties, they knowingly approach or remain within 25 feet of that first responder with the intent to impede or interfere with duties, threaten physical harm, or harass. The offense is graded as a Class B misdemeanor for a first offense, a Class A misdemeanor for a second or third offense, and a Class D felony for each subsequent offense. The bill therefore expands criminal liability for conduct directed at first responders and increases penalties for repeat violations.
Impact
SB104 adds a new section to KRS Chapter 519 and expands Kentucky criminal law by creating a specific offense aimed at conduct that interferes with or threatens first responders after a verbal warning. It affects individuals who approach or remain near protected personnel within the specified 25-foot distance with the prohibited intent, and it broadens the category of protected personnel beyond traditional emergency responders to include probation and parole officers, university police officers, and airport police officers. The bill was enacted as Acts Ch. 96 and becomes part of the state’s criminal code, with misdemeanor and felony penalties depending on repeat offenses.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have received generally favorable support overall, as reflected by strong final passage and veto-override votes in both chambers. The Senate passed it 32-5, and the House later overrode the veto with an 81-0 vote, indicating broad bipartisan agreement on the need to protect first responders. The recorded votes on proposed House floor amendments were rejected, suggesting that while the core bill had wide support, some members sought changes to its scope or wording before final enactment.
Contention
The main points of contention appear to have involved the bill’s breadth and the details of how the offense would be defined and enforced. The inclusion of additional categories of personnel—such as probation and parole officers, university police officers, and airport police officers—likely broadened the bill beyond emergency responders and may have been part of the amendment debate. The rejection of House floor amendments and the existence of dissenting votes in the Senate suggest some concern about criminalizing proximity-based conduct, the 25-foot buffer, or the intent standard used to distinguish unlawful conduct from protected speech or ordinary presence.