An act relating to first responders’ buffers during ongoing public safety emergencies
H.697 creates a new criminal offense aimed at protecting first responders during active public safety emergencies. The bill would make it unlawful for a person to intentionally remain or come within 25 feet of a first responder after the responder has identified themselves and warned the person not to approach, if the person does so with the intent to obstruct or impede the responder’s duties, threaten physical harm, or harass the responder. The bill defines key terms such as “first responder,” “public safety emergency,” “harass,” and “emotional distress” to frame when the restriction applies.
The bill applies to law enforcement officers, firefighters, and emergency medical personnel while they are responding to an acute event involving an immediate threat to public health or safety. A violation would be punishable by up to 60 days in jail, a fine of up to $500, or both. The act would take effect on January 1, 2027, and would add a new section to Title 13 of the Vermont Statutes governing crimes and criminal procedure.
H.697 would add a new criminal statute to Vermont law establishing a 25-foot buffer zone around first responders during ongoing public safety emergencies when certain intent and warning conditions are met. It would expand the state’s criminal code by creating a misdemeanor-level offense for obstructing, threatening, or harassing first responders in the course of emergency response, and it would provide law enforcement with an additional enforcement tool in emergency scenes. The bill would directly affect members of the public interacting with emergency personnel, as well as police, firefighters, and emergency medical personnel operating at active incidents.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes, the overall sentiment appears to be protective and public-safety oriented. The proposal is framed as a measure to help first responders perform their duties without interference, suggesting likely support from public safety interests. Because no discussion transcripts or vote history are provided, there is no evidence of formal opposition or amendment activity in the available record.
The main potential points of contention are the scope of the 25-foot restriction, the requirement that a person first be verbally identified and warned, and the intent standard tied to obstruction, threats, or harassment. Critics could question whether the buffer is too broad in crowded or chaotic emergency settings, whether it could affect bystanders, journalists, or protesters, and whether the terms “harass” and “public safety emergency” are sufficiently clear. Supporters would likely emphasize officer and responder safety, scene control, and the need to prevent interference during dangerous incidents.