Bill Description: House Bill 679 would clarify the use of vehicles in self-defense and criminalize protests that impede or disrupt traffic with very narrow exceptions.
Rating: -1
Does it violate the spirit or the letter of either the United States Constitution or the Idaho Constitution? Examples include restrictions on speech, public assembly, the press, privacy, private property, or firearms. Conversely, does it restore or uphold the protections guaranteed in the US Constitution or the Idaho Constitution?
House Bill 679 would amend Section 19-202A, Idaho Code, which deals with the defense of self, others, and certain places. The law already specifies that there is no duty to retreat and that someone may use “all force and means which would appear to be necessary to a reasonable person in a similar situation and with similar knowledge without the benefit of hindsight.”
Nevertheless, the bill would add a subsection dealing specifically with using a vehicle as a defensive weapon, saying the driver “shall have no criminal liability for injuries to, death of, or damage to property of any person the operator reasonably believes is attempting, or is aiding and abetting an attempt, to commit aggravated assault, robbery, rape, kidnapping, murder, or other heinous crime on the operator or any occupants of the vehicle.” It further says that the driver may “use the vehicle as a means of defense and escape in any way that would appear to be necessary to a reasonable person in a similar situation and with similar knowledge without the benefit of hindsight.”
While this language may be clarifying, it does not meaningfully change the scope or application of the existing law.
(0)
House Bill 679 would create Chapter 34, Title 67, Idaho Code, titled “Public Assemblies on Roads,” which would broadly prohibit protesting on a road unless it is a pre-planned public assembly that obtains a permit.
The bill says that “participants in spontaneous assemblies may not block or otherwise obstruct traffic; and shall comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations for persons on or alongside a public road.”
This prohibition could make it difficult for protesters to gather in certain locations because a sufficiently large protest (such as in front of the state Capitol, a courthouse, or a city hall) can spill into the streets, subjecting protesters to arrest and prosecution under this law.
While this law is intended to protect the right of drivers to use the roads, it could also limit the fundamental right of the people to peaceably assemble.
(0)
Does it directly or indirectly create or increase penalties for victimless crimes or non-restorative penalties for non-violent crimes? Conversely, does it eliminate or decrease penalties for victimless crimes or non-restorative penalties for non-violent crimes?
House Bill 679 would impose criminal penalties for any participant in a planned and permitted assembly who “fails to comply with the terms of a permit.” A violation would be a misdemeanor with a penalty of up to a $1,000 fine and six months of incarceration.
The bill would also impose criminal penalties for any participant in a “spontaneous assembly who fails to comply with an applicable law, ordinance, or regulation for persons on or alongside a public street or highway.” It says a violation will be a misdemeanor and “in addition to any other penalty prescribed by law, ordinance, or regulation” carry a penalty of up to a $1,000 fine and six months of incarceration.
Of note, most relevant laws, ordinances, and regulations related to pedestrians are infractions (e.g., jaywalking), but under this law, they would be deemed crimes due to their relation to a protest or assembly.
These penalties are inconsistent with the violations involved and are clearly intended to create a chilling effect on the constitutionally protected right to peaceably assemble.
(-1)
