Latest updates: Nov. 21, 2020 (New Jersey, Oklahoma), Nov. 13, 2020 (Ohio), Oct. 16, 2020 (New York)
US Federal
HR 8117: Stripping Pandemic Aid from Individuals Convicted of “Protest-Related” Federal Crimes
Would withdraw COVID-19 unemployment benefits from and impose new costs on anyone convicted of a federal offense “related to the individual’s conduct at and during a protest.” Such a person would be ineligible for federal unemployment aid under the CARES Act (15 U.S.C. 9023) “or any other Federal supplemental unemployment compensation during the COVID–19 public health emergency.” If federal agents were involved in policing the protest at issue, the person who was convicted of a related federal offense would also have to pay the cost of the agents’ policing activity, “as determined by the court.” Federal offenses include both violations of federal law, and violations of state law that occur on federal property. As such, the bill’s withdrawal of benefits and imposition of new costs could apply to, e.g., a peaceful protester convicted of misdemeanor trespass for refusing to leave a demonstration on the steps of a federal courthouse or a sit-in at a congressional office. (See full text of bill here)
Status: pending
Introduced 28 Aug 2020.
Issue(s): security costs
return to map
US Federal
S 4424: Withhold Federal Funding for Failure to Prosecute Destructive Protest Activities
Would empower the U.S. Attorney General to withhold up to 10% of select federal funding from a state prosecutor's office, district attorney's office, or state attorney general office, if the U.S. Attorney General determines that the office has "abused the use of prosecutorial discretion by failing to prosecute crimes stemming from riots or other violent or destructive protest activities." Many riot statutes in the U.S. are broadly worded and can encompass non-violent protest activity. In the past, peaceful protesters have been prosecuted under these statutes. This bill could encourage an aggressive interpretation of riot statutes as well as other laws that could be used against peaceful demonstrators. On September 17, 2020, HR 8301 was introduced in the House of Representatives, which has nearly identical language to S 4424. (See full text of bill here)
Status: pending
Introduced 4 Aug 2020.
Issue(s): riot
return to map
US Federal
S 4266: Withhold Federal Funding for Failure to Either Prosecute or Properly Police a Riot
Would empower the U.S. Attorney General to withhold select federal funding if the Attorney General determines that a state or local government has a "custom or policy" of not prosecuting an individual engaged in unlawful activity as part of a riot or if they decline to prosecute because the "unlawful activity is related to or associated with expression of speech protected by the First Amendment". The U.S. Attorney General can also withhold select federal funding if a senior official, governing body, or policy prohibits law enforcement from taking action that would prevent or mitigate physical injury or property depredation related to a riot. The U.S. Attorney General could withhold up to 25% of select federal funding or twice the monetary value of property damaged or physical injury caused by the failure of the state or local government to take "reasonable steps" to protect against damage and injury. The bill also would create liability for "a person with the lawful authority to direct a law enforcement agency" to prohibit law enforcement from taking action that would prevent or materially mitigate significant injury or property destruction related to a riot. The bill defines riot using the broad federal definition of riot. Such broadly worded riot provisions have been used to prosecute peaceful protesters in the past. This bill may pressure law enforcement to police assemblies aggressively to ensure that their policing practices are not second guessed by the federal government resulting in loss of funding or because doing otherwise might open them up to civil litigation. The bill could also lead to the aggressive interpretation of riot statutes against peaceful protesters by prosecutors so as not to risk losing federal funding. A companion bill HR 7786 has been introduced in the House. (See full text of bill here)
Status: pending
Introduced 22 Jul 2020.
Issue(s): damage costs, police response, riot
return to map
Michigan
HB 6269: Revoking Public Benefits of those Charged during "Civil Unrest"
Would revoke public assistance benefits for one year for someone who is “charged with looting, vandalism, or a violent crime in relation to or stemming from civil unrest.” “Civil unrest” is defined to include simply unlawfully blocking a sidewalk or roadway or an unlawful assembly. ”Violent crime” is defined broadly to include “intimidation, threat, or coercion.” As such, a nonviolent protester who was charged, but not convicted, of making a threat or being intimidating at a protest could lose their public assistance, including medical and food assistance from the state. The bill further requires that if the person has their child with them when they are charged with a covered crime that the individual will be reported to child protective services. (See full text of bill here)
Status: pending
Introduced 29 Sep 2020.
Issue(s): riot
return to map
Missouri
SB 9: Heightened penalties for blocking roads
Would criminalize protests that block traffic as "unlawful traffic interference" and provide for harsh penalties. Under the bill, a person's intentional blocking of traffic on a public street or highway, whether with her body or an object, is a Class A misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail and a $2,000 fine. If the offense is repeated, or takes place on an interstate highway, it is a Class E felony, punishable by up to four years in jail and a $10,000 fine. If the offense is committed while the person is part of an unlawful assembly, it is a Class D felony, which is punishable by up to seven years in prison and a $5,000 fine. (See full text of bill here)
Status: pending
Introduced 27 Jul 2020.
Issue(s): traffic interference
return to map
New Jersey
A 4991: Heightened penalties for blocking traffic, riot, disorderly conduct, and related offenses
Would create a new offense for blocking a highway or any “other public passage” in the course of a riot or disorderly conduct. The offense would be a fourth-degree crime, punishable by 1.5 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. (Under current law, blocking a highway or any other passage is a petty disorderly persons offense, punishable by up to 6 months in jail.) The bill would also create a new offense for disorderly conduct committed during a riot in a “place of public accommodation.” The offense would also be a fourth-degree crime. The bill would create a new offense for “desecration of venerable objects” during a riot--also a fourth-degree crime. “Venerable objects” includes “any public monument, insignia, symbol, or structure,” and “desecrate” includes "defacing" as well as “toppling.” New Jersey currently defines “riot” as participation in disorderly conduct by a group of five or more people with an unlawful purpose. (See full text of bill here)
Status: pending
Introduced 16 Nov 2020.
Issue(s): riot, traffic interference
return to map
New York
A 11069: Heightened Penalties for Riot and Incitement to Riot
Would enhance the penalties for first and second degree “riot” as well as “incitement to riot.” Under New York Law, “incitement to riot” is broadly defined, and could cover a person or organization found to have “urged” a group of people to protest in a “tumultuous and violent” way. The bill would make the offense a Class E felony, punishable by up to four years in prison, instead of a Class A misdemeanor. (See full text of bill here)
Status: pending
Introduced 7 Oct 2020.
Issue(s): riot
return to map
Ohio
HB 784: Excusing use of deadly force against protesters and heightening penalties for road-blocking protests
The bill would create a new civil and criminal defense for anyone who uses force, including deadly force, to escape from a "riot." The bill would excuse a person who "reasonably believes" they are in danger of imminent injury from a riot, from taking "any steps necessary to flee," and would justify their "using or threatening to use reasonable force, including deadly force, to escape." The provision could encourage the use of violence against protesters. The bill would also create steep new penalties for interfering with or blocking traffic during an unpermitted protest. "Hindering or preventing movement" of persons on roads (a minor misdemeanor under current law) would become a third degree felony, punishable by up to 3 years in prison and $10,000, if it occurred during a protest that had not received a permit, or a protest that exceeded its issued permit. The bill would also enable law enforcement officers to sue protesters and any organizational supporters of protests if the officers suffered injury or property damage as a result of a riot. Ohio law defines "riot" to include engaging in "disorderly conduct" (including "recklessly caus[ing] inconvenience [or] annoyance") with four or more persons "to hinder, impede, or obstruct a function of government"—a definition broad enough to cover peaceful protests. (See full text of bill here)
Status: pending
Introduced 9 Nov 2020.
Issue(s): driver immunity, riot, traffic interference
return to map
Oklahoma
SB 15: Mandatory restitution for property damage during unlawful assembly or riot
Would require courts to order individuals convicted of participation in a riot, incitement to riot, or participation in an unlawful assembly to pay restitution for any property damage or loss caused by the offense. Under the bill's provisions, individuals could be ordered to pay for damage that they did not personally cause, if a gathering they were part of was declared unlawful or a riot. Oklahoma law also broadly defines "riot" and "unlawful assembly," for instance giving broad discretion to authorities to label as an "unlawful assembly" a group of four or more people who gather without a permit "in such a manner as is adapted to disturb the public peace." (See full text of bill here)
Status: pending
Introduced 17 Nov 2020.
Issue(s): damage costs, riot
return to map
Virginia
SB 5079: New civil liability for law enforcement agencies that “stand down” during a riot or unlawful assembly
Would allow someone who is injured or sustains any property damage to sue the director of a law enforcement agency, if the person's injuries or damage were incurred as a result of the director ordering law enforcement officers not to take action in response to a riot or unlawful assembly. The bill provides that, in such lawsuits, a plaintiff may recover compensatory damages, punitive damages, and reasonable attorney fees and costs, including costs and reasonable fees for expert witnesses. If enacted, the bill’s proposal would create incentives for law enforcement to use more aggressive, provocative tactics against protesters, including peaceful protesters, in order to avoid a costly lawsuit. (See full text of bill here)
Status: pending
Introduced 17 Aug 2020.
Issue(s): damage costs, police response, riot
return to map
Virginia
SB 5058: Heightened penalties for remaining at an unlawful assembly or riot
Would increase the criminal penalty for remaining at the place of a declared “unlawful assembly” or “riot” after having been lawfully warned to disperse. The penalty would be a Class 1, rather than Class 3 misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and a $2,500 fine. Virginia law defines “unlawful assembly” broadly, to include a gathering of three or more people that “tends to inspire” a “well-grounded fear of serious and immediate breaches of public safety, peace or order.” Peaceful protesters who failed to leave the scene of such a gathering, after being ordered to do so, could accordingly face up to one year in jail. (See full text of bill here)
Status: pending
Introduced 17 Aug 2020.
Issue(s): riot
return to map
Virginia
SB 5074: New penalties for protests that block emergency vehicles
Would heighten existing penalties for anyone who “unreasonably or unnecessarily obstructs the delivery of emergency medical services,” or who “refuses to cease such obstruction or move on when requested to do so” from a Class 2 misdemeanor to a Class 6 felony, if the violation occurs at the site of a riot or unlawful assembly. Virginia law defines “unlawful assembly” broadly, to include a gathering of three or more people that “tends to inspire” a “well-grounded fear of serious and immediate breaches of public safety, peace or order.” Under the bill, participants in a peaceful street protest who failed or were unable to make way for emergency vehicles, for instance, could face felony charges if their gathering was deemed to be an “unlawful assembly.” (See full text of bill here)
Status: pending
Introduced 17 Aug 2020.
Issue(s): riot, traffic interference
return to map
