Establishes the offense of impeding, threatening, or harassing a first responder
HB 3100 creates a new criminal offense in Missouri for impeding, threatening, or harassing a first responder. The bill applies when a person, 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, knowingly and willfully violates that warning and comes within 25 feet of the responder with the intent to impede or interfere with 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 causing substantial emotional distress and serving no legitimate purpose. A violation is classified as a Class C misdemeanor.
If enacted, the bill would add a new section to Chapter 575 of the Missouri Revised Statutes, creating a standalone misdemeanor offense and expanding the state’s criminal code protections for first responders. It would give law enforcement and prosecutors a new tool to address conduct near active emergency scenes or official duties, while also setting a specific 25-foot buffer and requiring an oral warning before liability attaches. The measure would affect members of the public interacting with police, firefighters, probation and parole officers, and emergency medical personnel, as well as hospital-based emergency staff covered by the definition.
The available context suggests the bill was introduced as a public-safety measure and referred to the Emerging Issues Committee, with no recorded votes or committee transcript available in the provided materials. Based on the caption and structure of the bill, the overall posture appears supportive of protecting first responders from interference and intimidation. Because there is no debate record here, there is no documented opposition or amendment activity to indicate broader sentiment beyond the bill’s protective intent.
The main points of potential contention are the scope of who qualifies as a first responder, the breadth of the term “harass,” and the practical enforcement of the 25-foot rule after an oral warning. Critics could argue that the bill may be overbroad in public settings, especially around protests, accident scenes, or hospital emergency departments, while supporters would likely emphasize the need to prevent interference with emergency work and protect responder safety. The bill’s requirement of intent and prior warning may be viewed as a limiting safeguard, but it could also raise questions about proof and consistent enforcement.