House Bill 52, the “Protect Those Who Serve & Protect Act of 2025,” expands and reorganizes North Carolina criminal laws protecting public safety personnel and certain animals used in public safety work. The bill creates a new offense for assaulting a public safety officer, law enforcement agency animal, or search and rescue animal by throwing, spraying, or projecting water or other substances, and it broadens the definition of “public safety officer” to include a wide range of workers such as law enforcement, probation and parole officers, detention facility staff, telecommunicators, firefighters, rescue squad workers, EMS personnel, certain hospital and medical practice workers, National Guard members, Armed Forces members, juvenile court counselors, and emergency management workers.
The bill also revises several existing assault statutes to replace narrower references with the new “public safety officer” definition, while preserving or increasing penalties in some cases. It changes offenses involving lasers, deadly weapons, firearms, serious injury, and arson-related harm to protected personnel, and it repeals G.S. 14-34.6, folding its subject matter into the updated framework. In addition, it updates a court reporting statute so the Administrative Office of the Courts reports crimes committed against certain hospital and emergency health care workers under the revised assault provisions. The act applies only to offenses committed on or after December 1, 2025.
The bill’s legal impact is significant because it rewrites multiple sections of Chapter 14 of the General Statutes and related reporting law to create a more unified protection scheme for public safety workers and related personnel. It expands criminal liability to cover conduct motivated by a victim’s status, not just conduct occurring during active duty, and in some instances increases the felony class for assaults involving firearms or serious injury. It also extends protection to law enforcement and search-and-rescue animals, reflecting a broader public safety focus.
Overall sentiment appears strongly supportive. The recorded vote on second reading was overwhelmingly favorable, 105-9, indicating broad bipartisan approval of the bill’s purpose. The bill title and structure suggest a public-safety and anti-harassment measure intended to deter attacks on first responders and related workers, and there is no committee transcript showing substantial opposition.
The main points of contention likely concern the breadth of the new “public safety officer” definition and the scope of criminalization. Because the bill covers hospital employees, medical practice employees, telecommunicators, National Guard members, Armed Forces members, juvenile court counselors, and emergency management workers, some may view it as expanding felony exposure beyond traditional first responders. Another potential issue is the new offense for projecting water or other substances, which could raise questions about how broadly assault conduct is defined and whether the penalties are proportionate in less serious cases.
H52 amends multiple criminal statutes in Chapter 14 to create and standardize protections for a broad category of public safety personnel, adds a new felony offense for assault by throwing or spraying water or other substances at protected persons or animals, repeals G.S. 14-34.6, and updates related reporting requirements in G.S. 131E-88.3. It also changes penalty classifications in several assault statutes, including firearm and deadly-weapon offenses, and applies prospectively to offenses committed on or after December 1, 2025.
The bill appears to have strong overall support, as reflected by the 105-9 second-reading vote. The available record shows no committee transcript debate, but the bill’s title and the broad vote suggest a generally favorable view of strengthening protections for first responders, health care workers, and related public safety personnel. The much narrower 45-69 vote on the A1 Rubin second reading indicates some disagreement on an amendment or procedural matter, but the underlying bill itself advanced with substantial support.
Likely areas of disagreement are the bill’s expanded definition of “public safety officer,” which reaches beyond police and firefighters to include detention staff, telecommunicators, health care workers, court counselors, National Guard members, and military personnel. Critics may also question the new felony offense for throwing or spraying water or other substances, especially where the conduct may be minor or symbolic rather than physically injurious. Supporters, by contrast, are likely focused on deterring harassment and assaults against people performing sensitive public safety functions and on aligning penalties across related statutes.