STOP Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Moreno, Bernie [R-OH]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Oct 30, 2025
Bottom line
The STOP Act establishes a new federal crime for barricading during an attempt to evade arrest by federal law enforcement, aiming to deter dangerous standoffs and protect officers and the public.
What it actually does
This bill, known as the STOP Act, amends federal law (18 U.S.C. 111) to create a new offense for "barricading oneself during arrest evasion" of a Federal law enforcement officer. It defines barricading as taking a position that prevents immediate access by an officer and refusing lawful orders, with enhanced penalties if the action causes harm, involves a deadly weapon, or endangers a third party.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill is crucial for enhancing the safety of federal law enforcement officers and the public by specifically criminalizing barricading behavior. They contend that such actions escalate confrontations, divert essential resources, and significantly increase the risk of injury or death, making a dedicated federal statute necessary to deter these dangerous standoffs and provide appropriate penalties.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that existing laws already cover resistance to arrest and actions that endanger officers or the public, making this new offense potentially redundant. They could also raise concerns about the broad definition of "barricade" and the potential for over-criminalization or disproportionate application, particularly if a person's refusal to exit a location is not accompanied by active resistance or violence.
The bill is very short and straightforward, allowing for a quick and easy understanding of its core provisions.
Section 3, amending Section 111 of title 18, United States Code.
Creation of Offense for Barricading During Arrest Evasion
This provision establishes a new federal crime for any person who "barricades" themselves while forcibly resisting a Federal law enforcement officer attempting to make an arrest. Barricading is defined as taking a physical position that prevents immediate access by an officer and refusing to comply with lawful orders, knowing an arrest is being attempted. It also criminalizes aiding or assisting such conduct.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision directly addresses a critical gap in federal law by providing a specific charge for barricading, which often precedes or accompanies more violent resistance. This specificity will deter such dangerous actions, streamline prosecution, and enhance officer safety by discouraging prolonged and resource-intensive standoffs.
Critics contend
Opponents might contend that existing federal laws, such as resisting arrest (18 U.S.C. 111(a)) or obstruction of justice, already provide sufficient legal recourse for such actions. They may argue that creating a new, specific offense could lead to redundant charges or be overly broad in its application, potentially criminalizing passive non-compliance rather than active, dangerous resistance.
Tradeoffs
The bill balances the need to protect law enforcement officers and the public from dangerous standoffs against concerns about potential over-criminalization and the necessity of a new, specific federal statute when existing laws might already cover similar conduct.
Defines "Federal law enforcement officer" by reference to section 115 of title 18, United States Code.
Section 3, subsection (c)(1)(B)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative drafting practice to avoid redundancy and maintain consistency across the U.S. Code.
Case for: Referencing existing definitions ensures consistency and avoids creating conflicting interpretations of who constitutes a federal law enforcement officer across different statutes.
Case against: A reader unfamiliar with 18 U.S.C. 115 would need to consult additional legal text to fully understand the scope of officers covered, potentially obscuring the bill's full reach.
Estimated impact: This reference clarifies that the bill applies to a broad range of federal agents, including FBI, DEA, Secret Service, etc., as defined in 18 U.S.C. 115.
Specifies enhanced penalties (up to 5 years imprisonment) if the barricading offense creates a risk of or causes serious physical harm, involves possession or claim of a deadly weapon, or endangers a third party who cannot safely leave.
Section 3, subsection (c)(3)(B)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for detailing aggravating factors that justify higher penalties. It's not necessarily evasive, but rather a technical detail.
Case for: Proponents argue that these enhanced penalties are essential for reflecting the increased danger and severity of barricading incidents when specific aggravating factors are present, providing a stronger deterrent and ensuring justice for more serious offenses.
Case against: Critics might argue that the conditions for enhancement, particularly "creates a risk of... serious physical harm" or "claims possession of a deadly weapon," could be subject to broad interpretation, potentially leading to disproportionately harsh sentences based on perceived rather than actual threats.
Estimated impact: These provisions significantly increase the potential legal consequences for individuals engaged in barricading under specific dangerous circumstances, aiming to deter such actions and protect others.