By Elena Durnbaugh
Gongwer News Service
A bill to make it a crime to obstruct the road as part of a protest was debated by a House committee on Wednesday.
Supporters of HB 4664 argued that the legislation is intended to keep people safe, but those who opposed it said the bill was a violation of first amendment rights and would not effectively serve as a deterrent.
The bill would create a new criminal penalty for obstructing a road that would apply when an individual is participating in an assembly of people. Those who violate the provision would be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by 93 days in jail, a fine of up to $5,000, or both.
Currently, impeding the flow of traffic is only a civil infraction with a fine of up to $100.
Rep. Alicia St. Germaine, R-Harrison Township, the bill sponsor, testified before the House Judiciary Committee .
The legislation was inspired, St. Germaine said, by videos she saw on TikTok of protesters blocking the road in other states, which she played for the committee.
One of the videos was roughly captioned, “protestor regrets identifying as a speedbump.” In the clip, a woman protesting was run over by the car she was blocking.
Neither of the TikToks St. Germaine played took place in Michigan, though she did include a news clip from WDIV of a protest taking place in the road.
“What this legislation does is it ensures public safety,” she said. “We all have the right to free speech and to assemble to express our opinions, but where that ends is when you block people or hold them hostage because that’s exactly what’s going on in some of these scenarios.”
She said that protesters blocking traffic could be considered a form of false imprisonment.
“It’s about law and order and keeping everybody safe,” St. Germaine said. “Freedom of speech and assembly is a wonderful thing. It is. But the Constitution does not cover somebody holding another individual hostage in their car. It’s not right, and that’s what’s happening. That is a crime, holding somebody hostage. That is a crime. Stopping me if I’m driving down the highway, and a group of people are in the road and I can’t get through – that is false imprisonment … whether it’s the hospital, my dad’s in hospice, and I’m trying to get to the hospital, and you’re blocking me from my daily life. Maybe I’m trying to get to the airport. I just booked a $5,000 cruise. I’m going to be pretty pissed off.”
Macomb County Prosecutor Peter Lucido testified in support of the bill.
“People have a right to be passionate about what they do, but they have to do it lawfully,” he said. “We can only charge what we have in our laws. … We have disorderly conduct or failure to obey the lawful command of a peace officer. You know, when you exceed the limit of the permit, if you get a permit to go and peacefully assemble, that would be on the sidewalk. … When you exceed the permit, you are starting to put people in danger, and it’s more than a public nuisance. Safety hazards occur all the time. Nobody wants to see these get out of control, but when you block a highway open to the public, what you’ve done is impeded the rights of EMS, police, fire and your other constituents.”
Oakland County Sheriff Mike Bouchard also testified in support of the bill.
“Blocking a roadway is not merely an inconvenience, it has life and death ramifications for first responders that rely on open roads to reach people in need,” he said. “Having people in the roadway is dangerous, plain and simple, and a person’s right to protest does not extend to violating the rights or endangering the safety of yourself and others.”
The bill originally specified an assembly to be a group of 10 or more people, but an H-1 substitute was adopted to change the language to an “assembly of people.”
Bouchard, during his testimony in support of the bill, questioned whether assembly was adequately defined in the legislation.
Kyle Zawacki, legislative director for the ACLU of Michigan, raised concerns about the First Amendment implications of the bill.
“Demonstrations on public streets have long been utilized for political speech, marches, rallies, protests all require a physical space to occupy in order to exist. … We are all aware in this room, drivers hate to be inconvenienced when protests block streets. However, driving is not a right, it is a privilege. Protesting, on the other hand, is a fundamental constitutional right,” he said. “These bills may be framed as measures to protect public safety or the so called right to drive, but they more importantly discourage the constitutionally protected right to protest. All that in mind, passionate protesters do not take to the streets lightly. They are driven by a deep sense of injustice and want for social change.”
Lack of laws to charge protesters with is not the problem, Zawacki said.
“When demonstrations across the country are large enough to take over public roadways, the challenge has not been the lack of legal tools for dealing with unlawful behavior.
Instead, law enforcement has often used trespass or obstruction laws excessively to charge individuals participating in those protests,” he said. “Addressing that abuse of power should be the priority for lawmakers in this committee, rather than expanding the list of offenses that police can already use against those near protest activity.”
Rep. Kelly Breen, D-Novi, also raised concerns about the chilling effect legislation like HB 4664 could have on free speech and assembly.
“What evidence is there that changing this from a civil infraction to a misdemeanor criminal penalty would be a deterrent versus a chilling effect that this would have,” she said. “My big concern here is that we are currently seeing the evisceration of constitutional rights, especially due process in this country. I am extremely concerned about the chilling effect that this would have on free speech and free assembly. And so, there are already remedies to ameliorate these situations, the fact that you can already be arrested or detained for blocking traffic or causing injury to somebody else.”
Rep. Jay DeBoyer, R-Clay, said that protesters blocking roadways were infringing upon people’s right to move freely and that moving a protest into the road was an act intended to intimidate and disrupt.
“There’s only one reason that you stop traffic unlawfully, it is to disrupt which, by the nature of protest, we agree, could be to disrupt, but it’s also to intimidate. Are you telling me that by standing in a roadway, your free speech, message and position has more clarity?” he said. “This is an intimidation tactic, and this is a disruption tactic. It serves no purpose to stand in a highway.”
Gongwer News Service
A bill to make it a crime to obstruct the road as part of a protest was debated by a House committee on Wednesday.
Supporters of HB 4664 argued that the legislation is intended to keep people safe, but those who opposed it said the bill was a violation of first amendment rights and would not effectively serve as a deterrent.
The bill would create a new criminal penalty for obstructing a road that would apply when an individual is participating in an assembly of people. Those who violate the provision would be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by 93 days in jail, a fine of up to $5,000, or both.
Currently, impeding the flow of traffic is only a civil infraction with a fine of up to $100.
Rep. Alicia St. Germaine, R-Harrison Township, the bill sponsor, testified before the House Judiciary Committee .
The legislation was inspired, St. Germaine said, by videos she saw on TikTok of protesters blocking the road in other states, which she played for the committee.
One of the videos was roughly captioned, “protestor regrets identifying as a speedbump.” In the clip, a woman protesting was run over by the car she was blocking.
Neither of the TikToks St. Germaine played took place in Michigan, though she did include a news clip from WDIV of a protest taking place in the road.
“What this legislation does is it ensures public safety,” she said. “We all have the right to free speech and to assemble to express our opinions, but where that ends is when you block people or hold them hostage because that’s exactly what’s going on in some of these scenarios.”
She said that protesters blocking traffic could be considered a form of false imprisonment.
“It’s about law and order and keeping everybody safe,” St. Germaine said. “Freedom of speech and assembly is a wonderful thing. It is. But the Constitution does not cover somebody holding another individual hostage in their car. It’s not right, and that’s what’s happening. That is a crime, holding somebody hostage. That is a crime. Stopping me if I’m driving down the highway, and a group of people are in the road and I can’t get through – that is false imprisonment … whether it’s the hospital, my dad’s in hospice, and I’m trying to get to the hospital, and you’re blocking me from my daily life. Maybe I’m trying to get to the airport. I just booked a $5,000 cruise. I’m going to be pretty pissed off.”
Macomb County Prosecutor Peter Lucido testified in support of the bill.
“People have a right to be passionate about what they do, but they have to do it lawfully,” he said. “We can only charge what we have in our laws. … We have disorderly conduct or failure to obey the lawful command of a peace officer. You know, when you exceed the limit of the permit, if you get a permit to go and peacefully assemble, that would be on the sidewalk. … When you exceed the permit, you are starting to put people in danger, and it’s more than a public nuisance. Safety hazards occur all the time. Nobody wants to see these get out of control, but when you block a highway open to the public, what you’ve done is impeded the rights of EMS, police, fire and your other constituents.”
Oakland County Sheriff Mike Bouchard also testified in support of the bill.
“Blocking a roadway is not merely an inconvenience, it has life and death ramifications for first responders that rely on open roads to reach people in need,” he said. “Having people in the roadway is dangerous, plain and simple, and a person’s right to protest does not extend to violating the rights or endangering the safety of yourself and others.”
The bill originally specified an assembly to be a group of 10 or more people, but an H-1 substitute was adopted to change the language to an “assembly of people.”
Bouchard, during his testimony in support of the bill, questioned whether assembly was adequately defined in the legislation.
Kyle Zawacki, legislative director for the ACLU of Michigan, raised concerns about the First Amendment implications of the bill.
“Demonstrations on public streets have long been utilized for political speech, marches, rallies, protests all require a physical space to occupy in order to exist. … We are all aware in this room, drivers hate to be inconvenienced when protests block streets. However, driving is not a right, it is a privilege. Protesting, on the other hand, is a fundamental constitutional right,” he said. “These bills may be framed as measures to protect public safety or the so called right to drive, but they more importantly discourage the constitutionally protected right to protest. All that in mind, passionate protesters do not take to the streets lightly. They are driven by a deep sense of injustice and want for social change.”
Lack of laws to charge protesters with is not the problem, Zawacki said.
“When demonstrations across the country are large enough to take over public roadways, the challenge has not been the lack of legal tools for dealing with unlawful behavior.
Instead, law enforcement has often used trespass or obstruction laws excessively to charge individuals participating in those protests,” he said. “Addressing that abuse of power should be the priority for lawmakers in this committee, rather than expanding the list of offenses that police can already use against those near protest activity.”
Rep. Kelly Breen, D-Novi, also raised concerns about the chilling effect legislation like HB 4664 could have on free speech and assembly.
“What evidence is there that changing this from a civil infraction to a misdemeanor criminal penalty would be a deterrent versus a chilling effect that this would have,” she said. “My big concern here is that we are currently seeing the evisceration of constitutional rights, especially due process in this country. I am extremely concerned about the chilling effect that this would have on free speech and free assembly. And so, there are already remedies to ameliorate these situations, the fact that you can already be arrested or detained for blocking traffic or causing injury to somebody else.”
Rep. Jay DeBoyer, R-Clay, said that protesters blocking roadways were infringing upon people’s right to move freely and that moving a protest into the road was an act intended to intimidate and disrupt.
“There’s only one reason that you stop traffic unlawfully, it is to disrupt which, by the nature of protest, we agree, could be to disrupt, but it’s also to intimidate. Are you telling me that by standing in a roadway, your free speech, message and position has more clarity?” he said. “This is an intimidation tactic, and this is a disruption tactic. It serves no purpose to stand in a highway.”
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://www.legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
