Establishes the offense of impeding, threatening, or harassing a first responder
HB 1930 creates a new criminal offense in Missouri for impeding, threatening, or harassing a first responder. A person commits the offense if, after receiving an oral warning not to approach from someone they know or reasonably should know is a first responder who is lawfully performing duties, they knowingly and willfully ignore the warning and come within 50 feet of that responder with the intent to interfere with the responder’s duties, threaten physical harm, or harass the responder.
The bill defines “first responder” to include law enforcement officers, parole or probation officers, firefighters, and emergency medical care providers. It also defines “emergency medical care provider” broadly to include ambulance drivers, EMTs, paramedics, registered nurses, physicians, medical directors, and certain hospital personnel working in or supporting emergency department care and security. “Harass” is defined as a willful course of conduct that intentionally causes substantial emotional distress and serves no legitimate purpose. The offense is classified as a Class D misdemeanor.
HB 1930 would add section 575.356 to Missouri’s criminal code in chapter 575, expanding state law to specifically penalize conduct directed at first responders after a warning to stay back. It would give law enforcement and prosecutors a new misdemeanor charge to address interference, threats, and harassment occurring at emergency scenes or while responders are carrying out official duties, while also setting a 50-foot proximity standard and specific intent requirements.
Based on the bill text and available legislative context, the measure appears to be framed as a public-safety and responder-protection bill, with no recorded committee testimony or votes indicating organized opposition or support in the materials provided. The caption and structure suggest a generally protective, law-and-order approach aimed at safeguarding emergency personnel while they perform their duties.
The main points of potential contention are the breadth of the protected categories and the scope of the conduct covered. The bill reaches not only police, firefighters, and EMS personnel, but also parole and probation officers and certain hospital workers, which could raise questions about how broadly “first responder” should be defined. Another possible issue is the 50-foot restriction and the subjective intent elements—especially whether the warning requirement, harassment definition, and “intent to impede, threaten, or harass” standard could be applied too broadly or could overlap with lawful protest, speech, or bystander conduct at emergency scenes.