Marion County’s first ‘Halo Law’ arrest is dropped

Editor’s Note: You can watch portions of Mercer and Crandall’s bodycam video using this link:

A new state law that proponents claim is intended to protect first responders from being interfered with or harmed while performing their duties got its first test in Marion County in an incident involving a family with an autistic child at a local restaurant.

On March 8, Ocala Police Department officers Isaac Mercer and Marc Crandall made the first arrest under the new statute, dubbed the “Halo Law” as it puts a protective layer around first responders.

The “Gazette” obtained police body cam footage from the incident to piece together the events.

According to reports, Mathew Patrick Ubertaccio’s wife, Elaine, called OPD for assistance because a diner was harassing the couple about noise from their daughter, who was having an autistic episode in the restaurant. Elaine said the diner told the family to leave the restaurant and laughed at Elaine when she got upset.

OPD Officers Isaac Mercer and Marc Crandall responded and told the Ubertaccios that the diner was exercising their freedom of speech and that rudeness is not a crime.

The Ubertaccios said they felt the diner was discriminating against their daughter who, as a person with autism, is a legally protected disabled person.

According to the body cam footage, while the officers talk to the diner, Mathew Patrick Ubertaccio is seen approaching the officers with his cellphone up while recording the incident. Mercer issues his first Halo warning. As Ubertaccio, a tattoo artist, walks angrily way from the officers, he insults Mercer’s tattoos.

Mercer then decides to pursue and arrest Ubertaccio under the “Halo Law.” He also charges Ubertaccio with resisting arrest, but the body cam footage doesn’t support that allegation.

OPD Supervisor Dan Wright arrived on scene after the arrest and suggested Mercer consider giving Ubertaccio a Notice to Appear instead of taking him to jail, but Mercer persisted in delivering Ubertaccio to the Marion County jail.

The State Attorney’s Office has decided not to pursue a “Halo Law” case against Ubertaccio.

The “Halo Law,” enacted on Jan, 1, makes it a second-degree misdemeanor to “unlawfully knowingly and willfully violate” a warning and approach within 25 feet of a first responder to “interrupt, disrupt or hinder” the first responder’s ability to perform their duties.

Under the new law, first responders include a law enforcement officer, a correctional probation officer, a firefighter, or an emergency medical care provider.

The legislative bill analysis associated with the measure prior to it moving through the House and Senate with overwhelming support noted that prior to the “Halo Law” there were laws already in place that allowed for arrest for interfering with a law enforcement officer in the performance of official duties punished as “resisting an officer without violence or resisting an officer with violence.”

Those statutes have long-standing court opinions that clarified the penal statutes, and give a window into how the courts may interpret the intent of the new “Halo Law.”

In D.G. v. State, 661 So.2d 75 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), the court explained that if a police officer is not engaged in executing process on a person, is not legally detaining that person, or has not asked the person for assistance with an ongoing emergency that presents a serious threat of imminent harm to a person or property, the person’s words alone can rarely, if ever, rise to the level of an obstruction. Thus, obstructive conduct rather than offensive words is normally required to support a conviction [for obstructing an officer without violence].

This 1995 decision was noted in a 2006 second district case, D.A.W. v. State of Florida, 945 So. 2d 624, 627, where the court found that a minor’s conduct was the type of verbal harassment that, while understandably annoying to any reasonable police officer, does not rise to the level of obstruction necessary to permit a conviction that is not violative of First Amendment principles.

The court noted in that case, the officer did not testify that the juvenile was threatening the officer or trying to convince any of the other youths who had fled to return to harm the officer. The officer did not testify that he feared for his own safety or that the juvenile was taking actions that caused the officer to believe that juvenile was planning to come any closer to the arrest scene than his distance of 15 to 30 feet. The officer also did not testify that they were forced to interrupt the arrest process to deal with public safety concerns or other issues arising from the juvenile’s conduct. The officer’s testimony established only that a juvenile was taunting the juvenile the officer had been arrested.

The bill analysis for the “Halo Law” acknowledged caution in creating a penal statute that was vague- “because of its imprecision, may also invite arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.”