A BILL to amend the Code of Virginia by adding in Article 1 of Chapter 5 of Title 18.2 a section numbered 18.2-138.1, relating to approaching a first responder with specified intent after a warning; penalty.
HB1453 would create a new criminal offense in the Virginia Code for knowingly and willfully approaching or remaining within 25 feet of a first responder after receiving a verbal warning not to approach, when done with the specific intent to impede the responder, threaten physical harm, or harass the responder. The bill defines “first responder” to include law-enforcement officers, firefighters, emergency medical services personnel, and probation and parole officers, and it defines “harass” in a way that requires a willful course of conduct causing substantial emotional distress and serving no legitimate purpose.
The bill also includes several express protections and exceptions. It states that observing, photographing, or recording a first responder is not prohibited so long as the person does not violate the 25-foot/no-approach rule, and it exempts the subject of the official action, lawful representatives, people rendering emergency aid, and members of the news media engaged in newsgathering. A violation would be a Class 4 misdemeanor for a first offense and a Class 2 misdemeanor for repeat offenses, and the measure would take effect July 1, 2026.
If enacted, HB1453 would add a new section to Title 18.2 of the Code of Virginia and expand the state’s criminal law governing interference with public safety personnel. It would create a specific, distance-based offense tied to a prior warning and intent element, while preserving existing authority under other laws, including obstruction-related statutes. The bill would directly affect members of the public interacting with first responders at emergency scenes, as well as law-enforcement, fire, EMS, and probation and parole operations.
The available legislative context suggests the bill did not advance out of committee, as it was left in the House Committee on Public Safety. Because there are no recorded votes or committee transcript excerpts, there is no direct evidence of floor-level support or opposition. The bill’s structure, however, indicates an attempt to balance responder safety with protections for recording, journalism, and lawful observation, which may have been intended to address concerns from both public safety advocates and civil liberties or press interests.
The main points of contention likely center on whether the bill’s 25-foot buffer and warning-based offense are necessary to protect first responders or whether they could be used too broadly against bystanders, observers, or people documenting police or emergency activity. The explicit exceptions for recording, news media, and persons receiving or rendering aid suggest lawmakers were attentive to First Amendment and access concerns. Another likely issue is overlap with existing obstruction or interference statutes, since the bill expressly preserves prosecution under § 18.2-460 and other laws, raising questions about redundancy and enforcement discretion.