Minnesota House Bill HF2173

Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/12/25
• Refer: 3/12/25

Caption

First responders; crime of approaching first responders or remaining too close after warning defined.

Summary

HF2173 amends Minnesota’s obstruction statute to create a specific crime for approaching or remaining within 25 feet of certain first responders after being warned to stay back. The bill applies to peace officers, firefighters, and ambulance service personnel who are engaged in lawful duties, and it requires that the person know or have reason to know of the responder’s status, receive a verbal warning not to approach, and act with the intent to impede or interfere with the responder’s work. The bill also retains existing obstruction offenses covering interference with peace officers, firefighters, ambulance personnel, and certain state and local licensing/revenue employees. The new offense is tied to the existing penalty structure in Minnesota Statutes section 609.50, meaning violations would be punished under the same general obstruction statute. The bill takes effect August 1, 2025, and applies only to crimes committed on or after that date. In practical terms, it expands public-safety protections for first responders by criminalizing close approach after warning, rather than requiring physical contact or more direct obstruction.

Impact

HF2173 would amend Minnesota Statutes section 609.50, subdivision 1, by adding a new prohibited act related to first responders and by extending the reach of the state’s obstruction law. It would create a misdemeanor or felony-level offense under the existing penalty framework for intentionally approaching or staying within 25 feet of a peace officer, firefighter, or ambulance crew member after a verbal warning, when done with intent to interfere. The bill would therefore affect individuals interacting with emergency personnel at incident scenes and would give law enforcement and emergency responders an additional enforcement tool to maintain a safe working perimeter.

Sentiment

The bill’s framing and caption indicate a public-safety purpose, and the available context suggests it was introduced by multiple House authors with no recorded opposition in the provided materials. Because there are no committee transcripts or votes included, there is no documented debate to show divided views. Overall, the bill appears to have been presented as a straightforward first-responder protection measure, with an emphasis on safety and operational effectiveness rather than controversy.

Contention

The main potential point of contention is the breadth of the 25-foot buffer and whether criminal liability should attach after a verbal warning based on an officer’s or responder’s assessment of intent. Critics of similar measures often raise concerns about free speech, protest activity, and whether the standard could be applied too broadly in chaotic emergency settings. Supporters would likely argue that the bill is narrowly targeted because it requires knowledge of the responder’s status, a verbal warning, and intent to impede, limiting enforcement to deliberate interference rather than accidental proximity.