Cameron Miranda
In 2017, a North Carolina bill, HB330, caused controversy as it aimed to grant civil and criminal immunity to drivers who unintentionally hit protesters in the street. The bill was introduced by Republican Rep. Justin Burr and Chris Millis in response to protests in Charlotte in 2016, where residents were demonstrating against the police shooting of Keith Lamont Scott. While supporters of the bill argued that it would protect commuters from frivolous lawsuits, critics claimed it was unconstitutional and sent a dangerous message. Ultimately, the bill lost traction and did not become law. However, similar bills have been proposed in other states, sparking debates about the rights of protesters and the responsibilities of drivers.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| State | North Carolina |
| Bill Name | North Carolina House Bill 330 |
| Bill Sponsor | Republican Rep. Justin Burr |
| Bill Status | Did not pass |
| Bill Aim | To give civil and criminal immunity to motorists who unintentionally hit people in the middle of the street |
| Bill Rationale | To protect commuters from frivolous lawsuits |
| Opposition Rationale | Existing laws make the bill unnecessary; the bill is unconstitutional |
Explore related products
$27.18 $32
What You'll Learn
North Carolina's HB330 bill
In April 2017, North Carolina's HB330 bill, which aimed to protect drivers from legal battles with protesters, was approved by the state House in a 67-48 vote. The bill stated that drivers who hit protesters blocking the road would not be liable for injuries if they "exercise due care".
Republican Rep. Justin Burr of Albemarle, the bill's sponsor, stated that the bill does not allow drivers to intentionally target protesters. He argued that it protects individuals rightfully driving down the road and that drivers who willfully hit protesters would still face criminal and civil liabilities. However, Democrats raised constitutional concerns, arguing that the bill gives motorists a "free pass" to run over protesters without fear of civil liability. They also highlighted that existing state laws already made the bill unnecessary.
The bill was introduced in response to protests in Charlotte in 2016, where residents blocked roads and highways following the police shooting of Keith Lamont Scott. The bill drew criticism from the North Carolina Democratic Party Chairman, Wayne Goodwin, who called it a "shockingly horrible and dangerous piece of legislation".
In June 2020, the bill lost traction after a 20-year-old man drove his car into a crowd of people in Charlottesville, prompting calls for the bill to be dropped. The bill's sponsors, Burr and Millis, released a statement arguing that their bill should not be seen as justifying the act of violence in Charlottesville. Despite the controversy, the bill has not been considered by the Senate, and there are no plans to move it forward.
How Congress Can Reverse Its Own Laws
You may want to see also
Explore related products
$7.49 $29.95
The bill's sponsors
In 2017, a bill passed in the North Carolina House that protected drivers from lawsuits if they "exercise due care" and accidentally hit a protester who is blocking the road. The bill's sponsor, Republican Rep. Justin Burr of Albemarle, stated that the bill does not allow drivers to deliberately target protesters. Instead, it protects drivers who are trying to navigate blocked roads.
Democrats raised constitutional concerns about the bill, arguing that it only applied to situations where the person hit is participating in a protest or demonstration and blocking traffic. They also highlighted the potential for it to violate the right to peacefully assemble and demonstrate, a cornerstone of American democracy. Despite these objections, the bill passed in the North Carolina House.
This bill in North Carolina is not an isolated incident. There have been other instances of bills targeting protesters or granting immunity to drivers who strike them. For example, Republican legislators in Oklahoma and Iowa have passed similar bills, and a Republican proposal in Indiana sought to bar anyone convicted of unlawful assembly from holding state employment. Additionally, there have been bills introduced to prohibit disguises at protests, enable the federal government to withhold funding from states that allow protests on highways, and allow local authorities to charge protest organizers for costs associated with enforcing the event.
The sponsors and supporters of these bills often cite concerns about public safety, the need to protect drivers, and the impact of disruptive protests. However, critics argue that these bills infringe on constitutional rights and can have a disproportionate impact on communities of color, as seen in the statement from North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper, who chose not to sign the state's anti-rioting bill into law.
Law Enforcement Certification: Gateway to a Career?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The bill's critics
In 2017, a North Carolina bill (HB 330) caused controversy as critics claimed it would allow motorists to run over protesters without facing civil liability. The bill aimed to give civil and criminal immunity to drivers who "exercise due care" but still hit protesters blocking traffic. While supporters argued that it would protect drivers from frivolous lawsuits, critics raised concerns about its potential impact on the right to peaceful assembly and its constitutionality.
Critics of the bill, including North Carolina Democrats and the N.C. Democratic Party Chairman Wayne Goodwin, argued that it gave motorists a "free pass" to run over protesters without fear of legal consequences. They claimed that the bill endangered the cornerstone of American democracy—the right to peacefully assemble and demonstrate. This concern was heightened as the bill specifically targeted individuals participating in protests or demonstrations who were blocking traffic.
Democrats and other critics also questioned the constitutionality of the bill, suggesting it was "plain and pure unconstitutional." They argued that existing laws already addressed situations where drivers unintentionally injure protesters. Additionally, they believed the bill was unnecessary and would bring negative attention to the state, making it a target for ridicule on national television.
While the bill did pass the North Carolina House, it faced significant opposition and lost traction, ultimately failing to be considered by the Senate. The public backlash and concerns raised by critics played a role in the bill's demise, highlighting the importance of safeguarding the rights of protesters and maintaining public safety.
Notarizing a Will: Daughter-in-Law's Role and Legal Standing
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The bill's constitutionality
In April 2017, the North Carolina House passed a bill stating that drivers who hit protesters blocking traffic wouldn't be liable for injuries if they "exercise due care". The bill's sponsor, Republican Rep. Justin Burr of Albemarle, stated that the bill does not allow drivers to target protesters intentionally. He said that it protects individuals who are trying to drive down the road.
However, the bill has faced strong opposition from Democrats, who argue that it raises serious constitutional concerns. They assert that the bill selectively applies only to situations where the person hit is participating in a protest or demonstration and blocking traffic. Rep. Mickey Michaux, a Durham Democrat, went so far as to call the bill "plain and pure unconstitutional".
The controversy surrounding the bill highlights a conflict between protecting the rights of protesters to assemble and demonstrate peacefully, which is a cornerstone of American democracy, and the rights of drivers to navigate roads without obstruction. The bill's opponents argue that existing laws already address situations where individuals obstruct traffic, making the bill unnecessary and potentially infringing on the constitutional rights of protesters.
While the bill's supporters maintain that it does not condone intentional violence against protesters, the selective application of immunity to drivers who hit protesters has raised concerns about the potential for abuse and the message it sends about the value placed on the right to peaceful assembly. The bill has been characterised as a shockingly horrible and dangerous piece of legislation by critics, who worry that it could be interpreted as giving motorists a free pass to run over protesters without fear of legal consequences.
Law Enforcement and Your Unlocked Phone: What's the Deal?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Similar bills in other states
In 2017, a bill passed in the North Carolina House that protected drivers from being sued for injuries if they "exercise due care" while driving and happen to hit a protester who is blocking the road. While the bill's sponsor, Republican Rep. Justin Burr, stated that the bill does not allow drivers to target protesters intentionally, it has still sparked concerns among Democrats about its constitutionality and potential to encourage violence against protesters.
Similar bills have been introduced or enacted in other states, targeting individuals who participate in protests that block traffic or demonstrate near critical infrastructure, such as oil and gas pipelines. For instance, Alabama passed a law in 2016 that criminalizes trespass onto "critical infrastructure", and a bill introduced in 2020 aimed to expand the definition of "critical infrastructure" to include "pipelines." The bill would also create new felony offenses with significant penalties for individuals who interfere with or damage critical infrastructure.
Additionally, since the start of 2025, 41 anti-protest bills have been introduced across 22 states, according to the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law (ICNL). These bills seek to expand criminal punishments for constitutionally protected peaceful protests and have particularly targeted those speaking out against the US-backed war in Gaza and the climate crisis. The ICNL also reported that bills restricting protests against fossil fuel infrastructure have been enacted in 22 states, often influenced by the American Legislative Exchange Council (Alec), a right-wing fossil fuel-funded group.
Hiring Ex-Relatives: Ethical Quandary for Board Members
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
No. While the North Carolina House did pass a bill that would have given civil and criminal immunity to drivers who unintentionally hit protesters, the bill did not pass in the Senate.
The bill passed by the North Carolina House was House Bill 330, also known as HB330.
House Bill 330 aimed to give civil and criminal immunity to drivers who unintentionally hit protesters in the street. The bill stated that drivers would be protected if they exercised "'due care' in navigating the street but still hit protesters.
The bill's sponsors, Republican state Reps. Justin Burr and Chris Millis, filed the bill in response to protests in Charlotte, where residents were upset about the police shooting of Keith Lamont Scott. The bill's supporters argued that it would protect commuters from frivolous lawsuits.
House Bill 330 faced opposition from Democrats, who called it unconstitutional and unnecessary. They argued that the bill would give motorists a "free pass" to run over protesters without fear of civil liability. The bill also received criticism from Governor Cooper, a Democrat, who did not support passing laws that protect people who drive cars into protests.
