HN NOTES & MULLINGS ON THE MATTER

HN is probably one of the few people (if not the only person) in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts who has served as a police officer and is now serving as a professional photojournalist at crime and emergency scenes. I’ve been working around crime and emergencies a large part of my adult life… and I have useful perspectives from both sides of the camera. I’ve seen it all, not only in terms of aberrant behaviors and spectacles, but also in terms of “good” versus “malicious” personalities in law enforcement. Which qualifies me as being able to offer an opinion on the new HALO Act proposal in Massachusetts.

I see serious potential issues with the Massachusetts HALO Act proposal, which I’ll address below after the video and background on this new bill.

In January of this year, State Representatives Steven George Xiarhos of Barnstable and Richard G. Wells, Jr. of Milton, and others filed a proposal (accompanied by a House Bill) “for legislation to establish penalties for the intent to impede or interfere, threaten or harass first responders performing such duties.” It’s “an Act ensuring the safety and dignity of first responders (Halo Act),” according to MaLegislature.gov. 

[Sounds all well-and-good thus far… but please watch the video and continue reading…]

And depending on where one looks on the internet, the H.A.L.O. acronym stands for one of two things, it stands for “Helping Alleviate Lawful Obstruction” on one site, and “Honoring and Listening to Our Officers” on another.

Florida’s HALO Act went into effect on January 1, 2025, creating a 25-foot buffer zone around first responders actively handling emergencies.  Those arrested under Florida’s new HALO law can receive up to 60 days in jail, along with $500 in fines.

The following body camera footage presented at TCPalm.com shows footage related to a Port St. Lucie Police ‘HALO’ law case in Florida. “Port St. Lucie Police on Jan. 10, 2025, arrested a man accused of not stepping back from officers during a DUI investigation involving the man’s father,” according to TCPalm.com.

[HALO ARREST BODY CAM FOOTAGE  –  PRESS PLAY]

NOTE: Prosecutors ultimately DECLINED to prosecute the man under Florida’s recently enacted ‘HALO’ law, sources say.

Critics of these new “HALO” laws are concerned they may be abused, by violating an innocent person’s civil rights and liberties as fully protected under the U.S. Constitution.

Let’s take a look at the current Massachusetts proposal as it is currently written, awaiting review by the Committee of the Judiciary. The following is Bill H.2057, “An Act ensuring the safety and dignity of first responders (Halo Act)” in its entirety:

“An Act ensuring the safety and dignity of first responders (Halo Act).

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

SECTION ONE. Chapter 271 of the General Laws is hereby amended by adding the following section:

Section 52. (a) As used in this section, the following words shall have the following meanings unless the context clearly requires otherwise:

“First responder”, shall include any law enforcement officer, a paid, call, reserve or volunteer firefighter, a paid, call, reserve or volunteer emergency medical technician, or any other person whose usual and regular duties include rendering assistance at the scene of a crime, accident or other emergency.

“Harass”, means to willfully engage in a course of conduct directed at a first responder which intentionally causes substantial emotional distress in that first responder and serves no legitimate purpose.

(b) No person, after receiving a verbal warning not to approach from a person he or she knows or reasonably should know is a first responder and who is engaged in the lawful performance of a legal duty, shall knowingly and willfully violate such warning and approach or remain within 25 feet of the first responder with the intent to impede or interfere with the first responder’s ability to perform such duty, threaten the first responder with physical harm, or harass the first responder.

(c) Any violation of this section shall be punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 for the first offense, and for each and every subsequent offense, by a fine or not more than $5,000 or imprisonment not exceeding one year, or both.”

NOTE that the Massachusetts law proposal is asking for from $1000 up to $5000 in fines, with up to one year in prison, or both. Which is way more drastic than the punishments put forth in Florida.

HN THOUGHTS AND MULLINGS on the new HALO Law proposal as it is written right now:

While I believe most “good,” Constitutionally minded cops will not ever feel the need to use this law… cops who are “bad apples” with malicious intentions in Massachusetts will ABSOLUTELY abuse this law if it’s enacted here.

This law, if not first overturned by the higher courts (which I believe it will be, especially as it is written now), will lead to unnecessary lawsuits against statewide municipalities and police agencies.  (Lawsuits which will ultimately be paid by the taxpayers…) It will also place the reputations of good cops in jeopardy, creating a wedge between concerned law-abiding citizens and all police. There are already existing laws on the books that deal with disorderly conduct, interfering, and criminal harassment. Creating a new law that can be seen as only protecting one group of people can be seen as problematic by some. Some also worry that it will be abused to retaliate against those rightfully filming police interactions. If arrested, for example, police may be able to seize a person’s cellphone as “evidence,” etc.

HN understands the spirit and good intentions of protecting good police officers from being harassed and emotionally abused. But, as this law is written right now, it will most certainly not be good for law abiding citizens at emergency scenes, nor will it ultimately be good for police and firefighters… and it will likely do more harm than good by creating a deeper divide between first responders and the communities they serve.

This is my strong opinion based upon working as, or otherwise working very closely with police over the last 40 years of my life. In short, good cops will continue to be good cops (which we are fortunate to have mostly good cops here on the Cape), while “bad,” tyrannical-type cops will absolutely use this new law to further their abuse and criminal behaviors.  One only has to look just beyond our bridges at news reports to see evidence of rogue cops in Massachusetts ruining the reputations of good police officers in other jurisdictions.

So, as much as I would love to see our police officers and firefighters have powerful tools to avoid “emotional distress” caused by ignorant law breakers, I cannot endorse a law that will ultimately trample all over civil liberties in general, while likely causing the abuse of innocent citizens, and potentially doing much more harm than good to the noble cause of good police work.

This is a weak proposal in my view, the term “harass” is extremely subjective, not well defined, and subject to emotional interpretations and biases in the field. (And as you can see in the above video, the man approaching his father interacting with police could be seen as merely being concerned, while not being aggressive… the arrest, however, was based upon a very short interaction where the officer could be seen as possibly being the primary aggressor (all depending on who’s watching the video)…. which is probably why it was DECLINED for prosecution under the new law in this particular case.  (This arrest may have also caused more of an unnecessary wedge between the police and people who already don’t trust them in that community… it appeared to be a bad, unnecessary arrest that should not have happened in the first place IMHO… unless there’s more to this footage they’re not showing us, this was not good… bottom line, we do not need to undo trust here on our own Massachusetts streets when rogue cops – and there will be bad apples – use this law to harass law abiding citizens… if your feelings get hurt easily, find another job.)

The above were HN’s NOTES & MULLINGS on the matter, AND PLEASE don’t let them be construed as “harassment” or “interference” from where I currently stand.

I simply come in peace with my own point of view. So, please don’t lock me up, officer!  I’m opinionated and bold, but otherwise not too bad!  just “a rambler and a gambler and a sweet-talkin’ ladies man!”  

P.S. – Today’s Hytown Vignette is brought to you by Joni Mitchel… [CLICK IT/CRANK IT! HEADPHONES ABSOLUTELY OBLIGATORY!]

Business Card Directory

Add your business card click here