SC House Moves to Limit Public Recording of Police With 25-Foot “HALO Act”
- CUBNSC
- 2 days ago
- 3 min read
By Javar Juarez | Columbia Urban Broadcast Network (CUBN)
COLUMBIA, S.C. — A controversial proposal that critics say could restrict the public’s ability to record law enforcement moved closer to becoming law this week at the South Carolina State House. House Bill H.4763, known as the “HALO Act,” passed the South Carolina House on second reading Wednesday, March 4, 2026, by a 95–18 vote, placing it on track for a final vote before advancing to the Senate.
The legislation, sponsored by Rep. Melissa Oremus (R–Aiken County) and supported by dozens of Republican co-sponsors, would create a 25-foot buffer zone around law enforcement officers, firefighters, and other first responders once a verbal warning has been issued. Anyone who knowingly remains within that distance after being warned could face a misdemeanor charge, a fine of up to $500, or up to 30 days in jail.
Supporters say the bill is meant to protect emergency responders from interference during tense or dangerous situations. But civil liberties advocates and Democratic lawmakers warn the language is broad enough that it could discourage citizens and journalists from documenting public police activity.
House Minority Leader Rep. Todd Rutherford (D–Richland) argued during debate that the measure could undermine First Amendment protections and public accountability.
According to Rutherford’s interpretation of the bill, the legislation sets an “arbitrary line” without a clear exemption for journalists or observers, potentially pushing members of the public away from documenting police actions in public spaces. He also raised concerns that terms such as “distraction” or “harassment” could be interpreted broadly by officers in the field, creating uncertainty for citizens who are lawfully recording government activity.
The bill’s language makes it illegal for a person, after receiving a warning, to remain within 25 feet of a first responder with the intent to impede, interfere, threaten harm, or harass an officer. Critics argue that the concept of interference is subjective and could easily be applied to individuals holding a phone and documenting an arrest.
Halo Act: Why Recording Matters
The debate over H.4763 comes amid a national conversation about transparency and the role of bystander video in holding law enforcement accountable.
Recent controversies have illustrated how citizen recordings can shape the public’s understanding of police encounters. In one widely discussed case, Alex Pretti who was murdered by DHS ICE Agents was initially described by federal officials as a “domestic terrorist.” However, video evidence later revealed that Pretti was holding a cellphone rather than a weapon, raising serious questions about how the incident was characterized.
Similarly, the death of Nicole Good, another unarmed individual killed during an ICE-related incident, fueled renewed scrutiny over the use of force and the narratives that emerge after such encounters. Without witnesses and video documentation, advocates argue, the public might never have questioned official accounts.
Across the country, numerous high-profile police cases have relied on bystander recordings to reveal the full scope of events. For many civil rights advocates, the ability of ordinary citizens to record police activity in public has become a cornerstone of modern accountability.
A Partisan Measure
Legislative tracking services classify H.4763 as a strongly partisan measure, with dozens of Republican sponsors and no Democratic co-sponsors.
Opponents argue the legislation could disproportionately affect communities that have historically relied on public documentation to challenge misconduct, particularly Black and Brown communities that already face higher levels of police scrutiny.
What Happens Next
Because the bill has passed second reading in the House, lawmakers are expected to consider it for third reading, the final vote required before the measure moves to the South Carolina Senate.
The timing is notable. The HALO Act is advancing as state leaders simultaneously push policies requiring deeper cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities through 287(g) agreements with ICE. Civil liberties advocates warn that pairing expanded immigration enforcement with new legal barriers to recording police activity could make public oversight more difficult at precisely the moment when transparency is most needed.
If passed and signed into law, the HALO Act would place South Carolina among a growing number of states attempting to establish buffer zones around police activity, measures that in other states have already faced constitutional challenges on First Amendment grounds.
For journalists, community organizers, and everyday citizens who rely on their phones to document public events, the stakes are clear.
The final House vote may determine whether recording police in South Carolina remains an accessible tool of civic accountability — or becomes something citizens must attempt from farther away.
Comments