Recording Police in Indiana: Lawful, but Two 25 Foot Buffer Offences Now Apply

Indiana never enacted a right to record statute of the kind California and New York have, and it never enacted a prohibition either. The Indiana Code says nothing about pointing a camera at a police officer. What it regulates is your feet.

The first buffer offence, Ind. Code § 35-44.1-2-14, was added by P.L.67-2023 and took effect on July 1, 2023. It punishes a person who knowingly or intentionally approaches within 25 feet of an officer lawfully engaged in the execution of the officer's duties after the officer has ordered the person to stop approaching. Donald Nicodemus, a South Bend citizen journalist, was ordered back under it less than three weeks after it took effect and sued. In Nicodemus v. City of South Bend, No. 24-1099 (7th Cir., argued September 27, 2024, decided May 15, 2025), the court of appeals affirmed judgment for the State and the city, holding the buffer law a facially valid content neutral time, place and manner restriction. The construction the court adopted matters more to a person holding a phone than the result does. The panel rejected the reading both sides had assumed, writing that the law does not let an officer order someone who is already within 25 feet to move back, that it "is not a force field," and that a videographer inside the zone may remain in place and keep recording so long as they are not approaching after being told to stop. The court also noted the statute says nothing about video recording, and expressly left open whether it is unconstitutional as applied to a citizen journalist.

The 2025 General Assembly then added a second, differently drafted offence. P.L.4-2025 (House Enrolled Act 1122, approved March 25, 2025, effective July 1, 2025) created Ind. Code § 35-44.1-2-15, unlawful encroachment on a law enforcement officer. It broadens the setting from an investigation to any lawful execution of an officer's duties, but it narrows the trigger: before the officer may order you to stop approaching, the officer must reasonably believe that your presence within 25 feet will interfere with the performance of those duties. Section 14 was not repealed, so both offences appear in the 2026 Indiana Code and both are Class C misdemeanors.

Audio is governed separately and favourably. Ind. Code § 35-31.5-2-176 defines interception, for purposes of Indiana's wiretap article IC 35-33.5, as recording or acquiring the contents of an electronic communication "by a person other than a sender or receiver of that communication, without the consent of the sender or receiver." A participant recording their own conversation is therefore not intercepting anything. Unlawful interception by someone who is not a party is a Level 5 felony under Ind. Code § 35-33.5-5-5(b), and Ind. Code § 35-33.5-5-4 gives the person recorded a civil action for the greater of actual damages, $100 per day of violation or $1,000, plus costs, attorney's fees and possible punitive damages, brought within two years.

Two other lines are worth knowing. Ind. Code § 35-44.1-3-1(b) makes it interfering with public safety, a Class B misdemeanor, to enter an area marked off with barrier tape or other physical barriers after a firefighter, emergency medical services provider or officer has denied entry. And resisting law enforcement under § 35-44.1-3-1(a)(1) requires that the person "forcibly" resist, obstruct or interfere, so filming from a lawful position is not that offence. Running the other way, Ind. Code § 35-44.1-2-2.5, added by P.L.12-2021, makes it a Class A misdemeanor for an officer to turn off or disable a law enforcement recording device in violation of agency policy with intent to commit or conceal a criminal act.

If you want the department's own footage, Indiana's Access to Public Records Act has a dedicated scheme. Ind. Code § 5-14-3-5.1 lets a person depicted in a law enforcement recording, a property owner or occupant whose interior appears in it, a crime victim, or certain relatives of a deceased subject, inspect the recording at least twice in the company of an attorney, without copying it. Ind. Code § 5-14-3-5.2 lets any person inspect or copy unless the agency finds a significant risk of substantial harm, a fair trial problem, an effect on an ongoing investigation, or that disclosure would not serve the public interest; a denial can be taken to the circuit or superior court of the county where the recording was made, which reviews the decision de novo and must rule within 30 days, though attorney's fees are not available. Agencies must keep an unaltered copy for at least 190 days, or 280 days if the agency is the state, under Ind. Code § 5-14-3-5.3, and a copy fee may not exceed $150 under Ind. Code § 5-14-3-8(g)(1).

Both buffer offences are Class C misdemeanors, punishable under Ind. Code § 35-50-3-4 by a fixed term of not more than 60 days and a fine of not more than $500. The charging decision belongs to the county prosecutor and the case is filed in the county where the encounter occurred. Under the Seventh Circuit's construction in Nicodemus, the State must prove an order to stop approaching was given and that the person then knowingly or intentionally approached; a person who stops walking, or who was already inside the 25 foot ring when the order was given and stays put, has not committed the offence.

Under the 2025 section the State must additionally establish that the officer reasonably believed the person's presence within 25 feet would interfere with the officer's duties. Crossing barrier tape after being refused entry is a separate Class B misdemeanor under Ind. 1-3-1(b), up to 180 days and $1,000. 5. An officer who kills a body camera to hide a crime commits a Class A misdemeanor under Ind. 5.