New Arizona law makes it illegal to film within 8 feet of police(axios.com)
axios.com
New Arizona law makes it illegal to film within 8 feet of police
https://www.axios.com/2022/07/08/arizona-law-illegal-film-police-8-feet
367 comments
This law is going to be abused. We've seen officers trying to use intellectual property to avoid being recorded [1], turn off bodycams [2], or just straight up pepper spraying folks that pull out a cell phone [3]. Recordings cause problems for officers, so if the state gives them an way to prevent it they will use that.
This particular law [4] could be abused in several ways.
1. 8ft is from where "law enforcement activity is occurring". Officers will act assuming that this covers large areas, not just 8ft from the officer themself. Only later will courts get a chance to push back against this.
2. Nothing prevents a police officer walking closer to the person who is recording, pushing away the recording (or forcing them to stop as its now within 8ft.
3. The law says recording is illegal if interfering with the police or unsafe. Again, police will apply this to very wide circumstances.
[1] https://www.techdirt.com/2022/04/18/cops-are-still-playing-c...
[2] https://kstp.com/kstp-news/top-news/officers-across-minnesot...
[3] https://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/crime/article251249...
[4] https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/laws/0376.htm
This particular law [4] could be abused in several ways.
1. 8ft is from where "law enforcement activity is occurring". Officers will act assuming that this covers large areas, not just 8ft from the officer themself. Only later will courts get a chance to push back against this.
2. Nothing prevents a police officer walking closer to the person who is recording, pushing away the recording (or forcing them to stop as its now within 8ft.
3. The law says recording is illegal if interfering with the police or unsafe. Again, police will apply this to very wide circumstances.
[1] https://www.techdirt.com/2022/04/18/cops-are-still-playing-c...
[2] https://kstp.com/kstp-news/top-news/officers-across-minnesot...
[3] https://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/crime/article251249...
[4] https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/laws/0376.htm
Your examples aren't of this law being abused. This is the whole point of it. The writers know exactly what's going to happen.
the whole bill is wishful thinking. personal drones routinely show up at protests nowadays.
it honestly also seems like these writers have never picked up a nice smartphone; most have enough 4k zoom to film a nature documentary. even the zoom on a knockoff go pro is shockingly good.
its a feather in the ragged cap of tough on crime legislation at best.
it honestly also seems like these writers have never picked up a nice smartphone; most have enough 4k zoom to film a nature documentary. even the zoom on a knockoff go pro is shockingly good.
its a feather in the ragged cap of tough on crime legislation at best.
Cool so you can zoom in on your 4k video as the cop approaches you to take your phone
Always found it amusing that this is a real problem only in the land of the free.
There may be a big cultural difference at play here. Even before this law there were plenty of instances where a bystander recording police activity from a safe distance was approached, bullied and sometimes even arrested; with - of course - no later repercussions for the officers.
I feel like changing US policing culture would do much more than introducing or relaxing laws that the policemen will ignore and violate anyway.
There may be a big cultural difference at play here. Even before this law there were plenty of instances where a bystander recording police activity from a safe distance was approached, bullied and sometimes even arrested; with - of course - no later repercussions for the officers.
I feel like changing US policing culture would do much more than introducing or relaxing laws that the policemen will ignore and violate anyway.
I happen to think there are likely practical reasons for the law as I've seen videos where filmers were certainly interfering with police work and endangering everybody.
That being said, I agree 100%. The police will abuse this badly with intent to discourage filming police interactions. Which I also agree should be filmed as much as possible.
That being said, I agree 100%. The police will abuse this badly with intent to discourage filming police interactions. Which I also agree should be filmed as much as possible.
We already have laws for that. You can arrest them.
From reading the actual bill[1]: no radius of "law enforcement activity" is actually established. In other words: the police may claim under this law that "8 feet" means "8 feet from the radius," not "8 feet from their persons." This, in effect, may allow the police to arrest anybody within the radius of ordinary "law enforcement activity," such as peaceful protestors recording themselves during a protest that the police are being paid to monitor.
This is terrible law, designed to invite broad and abusive interpretation by the police.
[1]: https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/laws/0376.htm
This is terrible law, designed to invite broad and abusive interpretation by the police.
[1]: https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/laws/0376.htm
I grew up very comfortably, and in general the police have never given me grief. They've always been helpful. However, throughout my life, I've spoken to those who have had less favorable interactions with the police, who, as far as I can tell, were not doing anything to be worthy of the treatment they received. These stories have been so plentiful and consistently bad that I can not possibly believe that the police are an overall force for good. At this point, you can turn on the news and the evidence is right there. Maybe I was primed to draw these conclusions from the news from my prior conversations, I don't know. Either way, there are so many people in this thread who are convinced that this is a good thing and that it won't be cynically abused, and that these abuses will not be supported by the criminal justice system. There are a handful of threads that terminate in "well if that's the case, then we've got a bigger problem." What do you mean "if?" is my feeling.
I just don't understand it. If you see the abuses and think "well, they deserved it" or "ah it's a few bad apples" I'm not trying to speak to you. I don't think we'd really ever find common ground. I'm really trying to ask such questions to those of you out there who still seem surprised when the police do something bad, or those who just claim to be unaware. Do you or do you not talk to people who claim police are abusive? If you do talk to them, do you just not believe them? How many of such people have you talked to, and after talking to this many people, how many more people would have to confirm such abuses before you believed them? When you hear such stories, how do you discount them, or otherwise minimize them to the degree that your beliefs are not swayed?
I just don't understand it. If you see the abuses and think "well, they deserved it" or "ah it's a few bad apples" I'm not trying to speak to you. I don't think we'd really ever find common ground. I'm really trying to ask such questions to those of you out there who still seem surprised when the police do something bad, or those who just claim to be unaware. Do you or do you not talk to people who claim police are abusive? If you do talk to them, do you just not believe them? How many of such people have you talked to, and after talking to this many people, how many more people would have to confirm such abuses before you believed them? When you hear such stories, how do you discount them, or otherwise minimize them to the degree that your beliefs are not swayed?
> I can not possibly believe that the police are an overall force for good
So you’ve made a definitive conclusion and will now approach information with this bias.
> At this point, you can turn on the news and the evidence is right there.
> If you see the abuses and think "well, they deserved it" or "ah it's a few bad apples" I'm not trying to speak to you. I don't think we'd really ever find common ground.
The media has a narrative. They push all anti-cop stories as part of their storyline.
Every single day there are cops putting their lives on the line to do good. And you will never hear a single story of their heroics. The coverage is nearly 100% negative on the national level.
I’ve personally dealt with horrible cops that should absolutely be fired and heroes that deserve community recognition for their bravery.
I agree with you on one thing: we’d likely never find common ground. I cannot respect people that fall for the news storylines hook, line and sinker.
So you’ve made a definitive conclusion and will now approach information with this bias.
> At this point, you can turn on the news and the evidence is right there.
> If you see the abuses and think "well, they deserved it" or "ah it's a few bad apples" I'm not trying to speak to you. I don't think we'd really ever find common ground.
The media has a narrative. They push all anti-cop stories as part of their storyline.
Every single day there are cops putting their lives on the line to do good. And you will never hear a single story of their heroics. The coverage is nearly 100% negative on the national level.
I’ve personally dealt with horrible cops that should absolutely be fired and heroes that deserve community recognition for their bravery.
I agree with you on one thing: we’d likely never find common ground. I cannot respect people that fall for the news storylines hook, line and sinker.
> The media has a narrative.
You claim, without proof.
> They push all anti-cop stories as part of their storyline.
You claim without proof.
> Every single day there are cops putting their lives on the line to do good.
Every day there are cops killing Americans - at ten times the rate of any other country.
> And you will never hear a single story of their heroics.
This is provably false.
Go to any news site you like. Search for "hero cop". You will find endless stories.
You claim, without proof.
> They push all anti-cop stories as part of their storyline.
You claim without proof.
> Every single day there are cops putting their lives on the line to do good.
Every day there are cops killing Americans - at ten times the rate of any other country.
> And you will never hear a single story of their heroics.
This is provably false.
Go to any news site you like. Search for "hero cop". You will find endless stories.
> I can not possibly believe that the police are an overall force for good.
Simple test: will it hurt more _overall_ to suddenly lose them or keep them?
> You can turn on the news and the evidence is right there.
Selection bias is huge - not making the news are the vast, vast, majority of daily interactions that are net positives for society.
I’m not saying everything is perfect, but talking about “the police” as if they are a monolith in a country of hundreds of millions spread across 50 states and innumerable local communities is never going to be a good starting point for analysis.
Simple test: will it hurt more _overall_ to suddenly lose them or keep them?
> You can turn on the news and the evidence is right there.
Selection bias is huge - not making the news are the vast, vast, majority of daily interactions that are net positives for society.
I’m not saying everything is perfect, but talking about “the police” as if they are a monolith in a country of hundreds of millions spread across 50 states and innumerable local communities is never going to be a good starting point for analysis.
> Simple test: will it hurt more _overall_ to suddenly lose them or keep them?
Suddenly is doing a lot of the work here. Can police be unbundled over the course of years and result in an overall net good? Emphatically yes. We should examine the forces that prevent such an unbundling from taking place and work toward rendering them impotent.
Suddenly is doing a lot of the work here. Can police be unbundled over the course of years and result in an overall net good? Emphatically yes. We should examine the forces that prevent such an unbundling from taking place and work toward rendering them impotent.
It’s a thought exercise to examine the validity of the “overall” judgement. Obviously(??) suddenly is not possible or preferable.
> Obviously(??) suddenly is not possible or preferable.
"Suddenly"'s inclusion or exclusion dramatically changes the answer so it needs a bit more justification than it currently has.
"Suddenly"'s inclusion or exclusion dramatically changes the answer so it needs a bit more justification than it currently has.
> Can police be unbundled over the course of years and result in an overall net good? Emphatically yes.
Do you have proof or some source to support this idea?
Do you have proof or some source to support this idea?
> Simple test: will it hurt more _overall_ to suddenly lose them or keep them?
So everything or nothing? Sounds like a false dilemma.
Another problem with this decision-making approach is that anything can be un/justified simply by changing the unspoken timescale at which you measure outcomes.
On a short timescale, a knife stabbed into my gut should stay, because removing it will cause blood-loss.
However on a longer timescale where I'm in the hands of some doctors with bandages, it should absolutely be removed...
So everything or nothing? Sounds like a false dilemma.
Another problem with this decision-making approach is that anything can be un/justified simply by changing the unspoken timescale at which you measure outcomes.
On a short timescale, a knife stabbed into my gut should stay, because removing it will cause blood-loss.
However on a longer timescale where I'm in the hands of some doctors with bandages, it should absolutely be removed...
No, I think you’re missing the idea that this is a thought exercise to test the statement of police being “overall” bad.
You live in a leaky tent with a lot of holes in it.
Someone suggests you'd be better in a house.
"Imagine where I would be without the tent! This is a thought experiment to test the statement of 'this tent being overall bad'. Therefore I won't move."
Someone suggests you'd be better in a house.
"Imagine where I would be without the tent! This is a thought experiment to test the statement of 'this tent being overall bad'. Therefore I won't move."
When I hear such stories, I always remember that there are two sides to a story and people often lie or embellish to make themselves look good.
Police don't do everything right. But if you think that _everybody_ who had a bad interaction did nothing wrong, well, that's just foolish.
Police don't do everything right. But if you think that _everybody_ who had a bad interaction did nothing wrong, well, that's just foolish.
When police "don't do everything right", people die. They are given extraordinary leverage to use deadly force, and are assumed to be telling the truth in a court of law. And we have seen that almost universally, police will protect other police who abuse their power.
These are not equivalent. Police who do bad things not only cause extreme harm, but terrorize people whose protection is the whole reason we gave police the monopoly on violence in the first place. This is not a "two sides to a story" situation. This is a situation where one side has all of the power and far, far too much documented abuse of it.
These are not equivalent. Police who do bad things not only cause extreme harm, but terrorize people whose protection is the whole reason we gave police the monopoly on violence in the first place. This is not a "two sides to a story" situation. This is a situation where one side has all of the power and far, far too much documented abuse of it.
It has also been shown that police lie constantly
Not only to people in their daily business as police but also in court
Not only to people in their daily business as police but also in court
where has that been shown?
https://innocenceproject.org/prevalence-police-lying/
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/06/us/police-reports-lying-video...
https://www.rosenbergperry.com/blog/can-police-lie-to-you/
They literally have their own term for lying under oath because its so common: testilying
https://justice.gawker.com/ask-an-anonymous-cop-how-often-do...
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/06/us/police-reports-lying-video...
https://www.rosenbergperry.com/blog/can-police-lie-to-you/
They literally have their own term for lying under oath because its so common: testilying
https://justice.gawker.com/ask-an-anonymous-cop-how-often-do...
So you suppose some, not all, people embellish. How many people telling you horror stories would it take before you thought “ok maybe there’s something seriously wrong here.” What would it realistically take for you to change your mind?
There are ten MILLION police arrests in the United States every year.
The police kill roughly 1100 people every year.
The entire job of police departments is to interact with people who are breaking the law.
If 0.25% of police arrests turned violent, that means police have roughly 25,000 violent arrest incidents each year. This is a number I am coming up with on my own, but if you actually grew up in a bad neighborhood you will see this as a conservative estimate.
So, if you're looking at this from a raw numbers "how many people die" perspective -- it's actually low.
All that said: cops aren't perfect. I have had bad experiences with them. I think some changes need to be made.
But the idea that there is an epidemic of police killings is not supported by the numbers.
The police kill roughly 1100 people every year.
The entire job of police departments is to interact with people who are breaking the law.
If 0.25% of police arrests turned violent, that means police have roughly 25,000 violent arrest incidents each year. This is a number I am coming up with on my own, but if you actually grew up in a bad neighborhood you will see this as a conservative estimate.
So, if you're looking at this from a raw numbers "how many people die" perspective -- it's actually low.
All that said: cops aren't perfect. I have had bad experiences with them. I think some changes need to be made.
But the idea that there is an epidemic of police killings is not supported by the numbers.
Except somehow they seem to be exempt from the consequences of their mistakes. And just because some of the people they interact with did something wrong does not give the police carte blanche to do whatever they want.
With how often the police lie, it is foolish to give them any benefit of the doubt.
With how often the police lie, it is foolish to give them any benefit of the doubt.
I lived in America for thirty years. I've lived outside America for thirty years.
American cops terrified me with their aggressive ineptitude and I'm a polite older white guy with an English accent with short hair and a jacket. They never fucked me up, but I certainly saw them fuck up loads of other people, accept bribes, refuse to investigate blatant drug houses for years, and the like.
It took me quite a while to understand that cops here, while they do make mistakes sometime, are professional people with a sense of humor who aren't interested in displays of power.
American cops terrified me with their aggressive ineptitude and I'm a polite older white guy with an English accent with short hair and a jacket. They never fucked me up, but I certainly saw them fuck up loads of other people, accept bribes, refuse to investigate blatant drug houses for years, and the like.
It took me quite a while to understand that cops here, while they do make mistakes sometime, are professional people with a sense of humor who aren't interested in displays of power.
Sure there undoubtedly many false claims made against police, that does not mean there are not many valid ones, and In all of the most egregious, proved (full video - no question of the facts) cases of misconduct (often times when the video comes out way later), how often was it that another police officer was the whistle blower, filed a report or complaint, or challenged the initial false narrative? I’m aware of few if any examples. If the police can’t be forthright when they are clearly wrong, they lose the presumption of trust.
This makes me want to head to Arizona with my biggest telephoto lens, and very conspicuously film everything from a distance. Shame I'm on the other side of the Atlantic.
Or set up a 10 ft tall pole with a camera on it.
I could imagine if you arrest one person and some people walk towards you they don't know if the just film or want to attack. I as police would need one who watch if someone come close and another one who arrest the person.
Do people generally walk up to police while they are arresting someone inorder to attack the officer? That seems like too vague a threat, let people record.
I've seen plenty of released bodycam footage where they basically do; usually some form of white-knighting for the arrestee. But this is likely heavily influenced by a form of observation bias, where footage which shows police "under attack"[0] is more likely to be released than footage of cops behaving badly.
[0] usually it isn't terribly violent and the danger comes mostly from distraction; despite ACAB I do have some sympathy for the police in these situations
[0] usually it isn't terribly violent and the danger comes mostly from distraction; despite ACAB I do have some sympathy for the police in these situations
I'm in favor of officer safety, but if this law was actually about officer safety, there's no need to mention recording. Just write the law to keep all bystanders 8ft away. Because it specifically mentions recording, this law is not about officer safety, it's about limiting recording.
I basically agree. Unfortunately this law is more likely to be actually upheld and applied than one which says you can't come within 8ft of a cop, period; and therefore it is more effective at achieving the intended goal which is more about giving cops special privileges in general, not just about limiting recording.
Text of the Bill (https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/laws/0376.htm):
> 13-3732. Unlawful video recording of law enforcement activity; classification; definition
> > A. It is unlawful for a person to knowingly make a video recording of law enforcement activity if the person making the video recording is within eight feet of where the person knows or reasonably should know that law enforcement activity is occurring, either receives or has previously received a verbal warning from a law enforcement officer that the person is prohibited from making a video recording OF A LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY within eight feet of THE activity and CONTINUES TO MAKE A video recordING OF the law enforcement activity WITHIN EIGHT FEET OF THE ACTIVITY. If the law enforcement activity is occurring in an enclosed structure that is on private property, a person who is authorized to be on the private property may make a video recording of the activity from an adjacent room or area that is less than eight feet away from where the activity is occurring, unless a law enforcement officer determines that the person is INTERFERING in the law enforcement activity or that it is not safe to be in the area and orders the person to leave the area.
> > B. notwithstanding subsection A of this section, a person who is the subject of police contact may record the encounter if the person is not interfering with lawful police actions, including searching, handcuffing or administering a field sobriety test. The occupants of a vehicle that is the subject of a police stop may record the encounter if the occupants are not interfering with lawful police actions.
> > C. this section does not establish a right or authorize any person to make a video recording of law enforcement activity.
> > D. A violation of this section is a class 3 misdemeanor.
> > E. For the purposes of this section, "law enforcement activity" means any of the following:
> > > 1. Questioning a suspicious person.
> > > 2. Conducting an arrest, issuing a summons or enforcing the law.
> > > 3. Handling an emotionally disturbed or disorderly person who is exhibiting abnormal behavior.
> 13-3732. Unlawful video recording of law enforcement activity; classification; definition
> > A. It is unlawful for a person to knowingly make a video recording of law enforcement activity if the person making the video recording is within eight feet of where the person knows or reasonably should know that law enforcement activity is occurring, either receives or has previously received a verbal warning from a law enforcement officer that the person is prohibited from making a video recording OF A LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY within eight feet of THE activity and CONTINUES TO MAKE A video recordING OF the law enforcement activity WITHIN EIGHT FEET OF THE ACTIVITY. If the law enforcement activity is occurring in an enclosed structure that is on private property, a person who is authorized to be on the private property may make a video recording of the activity from an adjacent room or area that is less than eight feet away from where the activity is occurring, unless a law enforcement officer determines that the person is INTERFERING in the law enforcement activity or that it is not safe to be in the area and orders the person to leave the area.
> > B. notwithstanding subsection A of this section, a person who is the subject of police contact may record the encounter if the person is not interfering with lawful police actions, including searching, handcuffing or administering a field sobriety test. The occupants of a vehicle that is the subject of a police stop may record the encounter if the occupants are not interfering with lawful police actions.
> > C. this section does not establish a right or authorize any person to make a video recording of law enforcement activity.
> > D. A violation of this section is a class 3 misdemeanor.
> > E. For the purposes of this section, "law enforcement activity" means any of the following:
> > > 1. Questioning a suspicious person.
> > > 2. Conducting an arrest, issuing a summons or enforcing the law.
> > > 3. Handling an emotionally disturbed or disorderly person who is exhibiting abnormal behavior.
What's going to stop the police from lying and saying any camera was within 8 feet?
Well the footage seems like it would be pretty good evidence (whichever way), given some analysis and a site visit?
At the end of the day, it doesn't matter whether the charges are dropped or if you're found innocent.
What matters is that it'll cause people to think twice about filming the police.
What happens when you get arrested? Well, you might end up on the news, miss work because you can't make bail, lose your job because of either of those. Without a job you can't make rent (and finding a new job or housing with an arrest is much harder, even if you were found innocent/charges dropped), without rent you get evicted which nukes your credit and means you can only rent from utter slumlords...you get the picture. And that's assuming you don't have cops who do things like plant drugs to justify further charges.
Those most likely to be the victims of police brutality are the same people who are most likely to be living paycheck to paycheck and afraid of getting arrested. It creates a chilling effect, so regardless of the legality of the actions of the police, they won.
Edit: Also, consider a cop approaching you and saying "no filming within 8 feet". You're not within 8 feet of the scene of the crime but he's getting close, so you, being a law-abiding citizen, back up. He keeps coming towards you. Pretty soon, your camera can't zoom in far enough to record the original situation. You start to run around him since you can get close to the scene but 8 feet from him and it'll be legal to film...only to get tackled and charged with resisting arrest or other similarly vague statutes.
Now you're in even more trouble than before, and are way more likely to get convicted. Oh, and after you dropped your phone during the arrest, it was mysteriously smashed, so now it's your word against the cops...at that point, you might as well just take a plea.
What matters is that it'll cause people to think twice about filming the police.
What happens when you get arrested? Well, you might end up on the news, miss work because you can't make bail, lose your job because of either of those. Without a job you can't make rent (and finding a new job or housing with an arrest is much harder, even if you were found innocent/charges dropped), without rent you get evicted which nukes your credit and means you can only rent from utter slumlords...you get the picture. And that's assuming you don't have cops who do things like plant drugs to justify further charges.
Those most likely to be the victims of police brutality are the same people who are most likely to be living paycheck to paycheck and afraid of getting arrested. It creates a chilling effect, so regardless of the legality of the actions of the police, they won.
Edit: Also, consider a cop approaching you and saying "no filming within 8 feet". You're not within 8 feet of the scene of the crime but he's getting close, so you, being a law-abiding citizen, back up. He keeps coming towards you. Pretty soon, your camera can't zoom in far enough to record the original situation. You start to run around him since you can get close to the scene but 8 feet from him and it'll be legal to film...only to get tackled and charged with resisting arrest or other similarly vague statutes.
Now you're in even more trouble than before, and are way more likely to get convicted. Oh, and after you dropped your phone during the arrest, it was mysteriously smashed, so now it's your word against the cops...at that point, you might as well just take a plea.
Getting body cam footage from the police is like pulling teeth, except the teeth have guns and politicians. The public is barely able to get footage after outrageous murders by the police.
Under this new law, the police are given additional and unreasonable cover for destroying evidence. After all, you’re interfering by recording them, and they can’t be blamed if they happen to curb stomp your phone while arresting you for interference.
Under this new law, the police are given additional and unreasonable cover for destroying evidence. After all, you’re interfering by recording them, and they can’t be blamed if they happen to curb stomp your phone while arresting you for interference.
live-streaming
Are we to expect every person at a crime scene to have the presence of mind to live stream? That seems extraordinary.
Depends on how expedient it is to launch a livestreaming app.
And on the availability and stability of a cellular or WiFi connection.
I imagine there will be a lot of live-streams that begin with a cop walking to the camera going "hey hey hey put that away" and end around there.
Next thing you know, every police car is equipped with a short range cellular base station to intercept or block any outgoing streams in the vincinity.
Site visit might be "too expensive" or "not warranted" or just dismissed with some excuse, and if a cop sees someone taking out a camera, I imagine they can just walk towards it and say "you're too close," since at some point they will be.
> Site visit might be "too expensive" or "not warranted" or just dismissed
But that should only happen if there's no 'reasonable doubt', right? And if not, that's a bigger more general problem.
But that should only happen if there's no 'reasonable doubt', right? And if not, that's a bigger more general problem.
I assure you, there is a "bigger, more general problem" that this legislation was introduced to prop up.
I'm sure every cop will pull out their ruler and measure it out accurately lol
Why would it be a cop? I'm saying if you were charged with it there would be no excuse for not having photographic evidence of it.
Is it just me or does 8-10 feet seem like an optimal distance to film from anyway? Who’s shooting productive videos from two feet away?
Even the George Floyd videos were at least ten feet away and they seemed more than adequate.
Even the George Floyd videos were at least ten feet away and they seemed more than adequate.
> Is it just me or does 8-10 feet seem like an optimal distance to film from anyway? Who’s shooting productive videos from two feet away?
"Productive" is not the relevant metric; "expedient" is. If I'm in a crowded subway car, I may not be able to move 10 feet away from the police officer who's harassing my fellow straphanger. Worse, if I were to move away, the commotion of the crowded car would likely drown out my cellphone's microphone.
"Productive" is not the relevant metric; "expedient" is. If I'm in a crowded subway car, I may not be able to move 10 feet away from the police officer who's harassing my fellow straphanger. Worse, if I were to move away, the commotion of the crowded car would likely drown out my cellphone's microphone.
To add context (nothing more)... there is a call out for occupants of the same vehicle and what they can do (they can record as long as they are not also interfering).
The carve-out is for "occupants of a vehicle that is the subject of a police stop." My right to record the police shouldn't rest on whether a state judge interprets a public bus or subway in that manner; it's a ridiculous hair to split.
Another example: during a protest, the police might decide to kettle[1] a group of protestors to control them. As a bystander, I can be caught in the kettle. I'm not the target of the police action, and yet this law suggests that my recording might be criminal.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kettling
Another example: during a protest, the police might decide to kettle[1] a group of protestors to control them. As a bystander, I can be caught in the kettle. I'm not the target of the police action, and yet this law suggests that my recording might be criminal.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kettling
Anyone who is filming from 8-10 feet away who is approached by an officer who wishes for the filming to cease.
It doesnt apply then, it only applies to officers who are questioning, arresting, etc.
> ...only applies to officers who are questioning, arresting, etc.
and the vague "enforcing the law". The fear is that the bad actors will always claim they were enforcing the law.
====================== For the purposes of this section, "law enforcement activity" means any of the following:
1. Questioning a suspicious person.
2. Conducting an arrest, issuing a summons or enforcing the law.
3. Handling an emotionally disturbed or disorderly person who is exhibiting abnormal behavior.
and the vague "enforcing the law". The fear is that the bad actors will always claim they were enforcing the law.
====================== For the purposes of this section, "law enforcement activity" means any of the following:
1. Questioning a suspicious person.
2. Conducting an arrest, issuing a summons or enforcing the law.
3. Handling an emotionally disturbed or disorderly person who is exhibiting abnormal behavior.
Realistically, it applies to whatever the officer thinks it applies to.
Judges and lawyers will have to figure that out.
Judges overwhelmingly side with police officers over defendants as a default stance. Adding laws restricting civilian rights and protecting police officers can only skew that stance further away from neutrality and towards the favor of police officers.
> Judges overwhelmingly side with police officers over defendants as a default stance.
Definitely not true here in King County Washington, but Arizona is probably very different.
Definitely not true here in King County Washington, but Arizona is probably very different.
Most police interaction goes unobserved by a third party so, if I understand the bill correctly, at a minimum this means recording your own arrest is illegal.
EDIT: It sounds like recording any interaction you have with a police officer is now illegal, if they're within 8ft of you.
EDIT: It sounds like recording any interaction you have with a police officer is now illegal, if they're within 8ft of you.
Based on the full text quoted by another commenter https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32047580, this does not seem to be the case. Specifically:
> > B. notwithstanding subsection A of this section, a person who is the subject of police contact may record the encounter if the person is not interfering with lawful police actions, including searching, handcuffing or administering a field sobriety test. The occupants of a vehicle that is the subject of a police stop may record the encounter if the occupants are not interfering with lawful police actions.
> > B. notwithstanding subsection A of this section, a person who is the subject of police contact may record the encounter if the person is not interfering with lawful police actions, including searching, handcuffing or administering a field sobriety test. The occupants of a vehicle that is the subject of a police stop may record the encounter if the occupants are not interfering with lawful police actions.
Well, at least that's good.
Just as a note, most people record with their phones out and pointed at the subject they're recording. From watching many of these videos, police routinely ask people recording to put their phones away, even though they aren't interfering. It seems likely that police will use the excuse that the mere act of recording in this way is interfering and can be used to stop recording or to arrest the person recording.
Just as a note, most people record with their phones out and pointed at the subject they're recording. From watching many of these videos, police routinely ask people recording to put their phones away, even though they aren't interfering. It seems likely that police will use the excuse that the mere act of recording in this way is interfering and can be used to stop recording or to arrest the person recording.
Of course, given qualified immunity, there's nothing to actually prevent cops from acting like they don't know that clause exists.
It is impossible to be 8 feet away if you are sitting in the front seat during a traffic stop.
> It is impossible to be 8 feet away if you are sitting in the front seat during a traffic stop.
This is addressed:
> B. notwithstanding subsection A of this section, a person who is the subject of police contact may record the encounter if the person is not interfering with lawful police actions, including searching, handcuffing or administering a field sobriety test. The occupants of a vehicle that is the subject of a police stop may record the encounter if the occupants are not interfering with lawful police actions.
This is addressed:
> B. notwithstanding subsection A of this section, a person who is the subject of police contact may record the encounter if the person is not interfering with lawful police actions, including searching, handcuffing or administering a field sobriety test. The occupants of a vehicle that is the subject of a police stop may record the encounter if the occupants are not interfering with lawful police actions.
"If the occupants are not interfering with lawful police actions" is doing a lot of work in that text. How much you want to bet cops can find some excuse for why a recording passenger was interfering?
Oh good, my cynical take is incorrect!
[deleted]
Seems the most common scenario would be documenting traffic stops. I would be within 8 feet of an officer in any seat of my car.
A fish eye lens works fine. That is what body cameras use.
How is this anything other than an attempt to keep people from collecting evidence of bad police behavior?
Now that a large majority of people have a high quality video camera in their pockets, we've learned 2 things: (1) alien abduction was not real (2) police very deliberately kill members of racial minorities. I think this law is a reaction to (2).
Now that a large majority of people have a high quality video camera in their pockets, we've learned 2 things: (1) alien abduction was not real (2) police very deliberately kill members of racial minorities. I think this law is a reaction to (2).
You need to read the law to understand it better and also understand the current rulings that courts have provided on filming police. This law is none of those things that you state it's simply codifying a distance for what the courts have already upheld that police can do.
If you are party to the police interaction you can film closer than 8 ft. If you are in a car as a passenger you can film the interaction and the police cannot ask you to stop. If you are a non-party person simply watching the interaction the police can now ask you to maintain a distance of 8 ft.
Courts have already upheld routinely that police can ask people who are not party to the interaction to step away and they can create a reasonable area around them and the scene and keep people out of it. The definition of reasonable area varies based upon the situation. This that a reasonable area is a minimum of 8 ft. There are situations where that distance may be greater.
Regardless of what you think of the police they do need to be empowered to keep bystanders out of the middle of an interaction with their cameras in order to conduct their duties. 8 ft for a bystander is a very reasonable distance. At 8 ft your camera can see anything that a human-sized person is doing it to another human-sized person and it can record the audio of that interaction as well at 8 ft.
And as always the person who is party to the interaction can record the interaction and this is codified in this law as well. Laws like this do more to uphold a citizens ability to record the police then it does to take it away. Any reasonable person would understand that because without a law like this the police could argue that 50 ft is a reasonable distance. Now we have a law that says 8 ft is a reasonable distance in Arizona.
If you are party to the police interaction you can film closer than 8 ft. If you are in a car as a passenger you can film the interaction and the police cannot ask you to stop. If you are a non-party person simply watching the interaction the police can now ask you to maintain a distance of 8 ft.
Courts have already upheld routinely that police can ask people who are not party to the interaction to step away and they can create a reasonable area around them and the scene and keep people out of it. The definition of reasonable area varies based upon the situation. This that a reasonable area is a minimum of 8 ft. There are situations where that distance may be greater.
Regardless of what you think of the police they do need to be empowered to keep bystanders out of the middle of an interaction with their cameras in order to conduct their duties. 8 ft for a bystander is a very reasonable distance. At 8 ft your camera can see anything that a human-sized person is doing it to another human-sized person and it can record the audio of that interaction as well at 8 ft.
And as always the person who is party to the interaction can record the interaction and this is codified in this law as well. Laws like this do more to uphold a citizens ability to record the police then it does to take it away. Any reasonable person would understand that because without a law like this the police could argue that 50 ft is a reasonable distance. Now we have a law that says 8 ft is a reasonable distance in Arizona.
So if you're filming from 20 ft away and a cop walks towards to and yells at you to stop you can film until he's precisely 8 ft away, right?
What if you have a line of cops holding hands and forming a 10ft radius around you? Can you film? What if they start rotating and stepping in and out?
The law is dumb and redundant (you can get in trouble for interfering just fine with the laws on the books today). This is plain and simple intimidation.
What if you have a line of cops holding hands and forming a 10ft radius around you? Can you film? What if they start rotating and stepping in and out?
The law is dumb and redundant (you can get in trouble for interfering just fine with the laws on the books today). This is plain and simple intimidation.
The law is dumb and redundant (you can get in trouble for interfering just fine with the laws on the books today). This is plain and simple intimidation.
I was ready to comment something like "meh, you shouldn't be getting that close to them anyway." But you're right, it's already a law to not interfere. Whether you're recording or not shouldn't matter. Unless maybe they needed specific numbers because it is limiting a first amendment right.
I was ready to comment something like "meh, you shouldn't be getting that close to them anyway." But you're right, it's already a law to not interfere. Whether you're recording or not shouldn't matter. Unless maybe they needed specific numbers because it is limiting a first amendment right.
Yes you could film in both of those situations. The law specifically lists law enforcement activities as making an arrest, questioning suspects, and dealing with emotional situations (edit: specifically emotional or disturbed person exhibiting abnormal activity).
Also, if you are part of the law enforcement activity, you are allowed to film. So yes, if a cop walks up to you yelling and you are at least 8ft from the law enforcement activity, you are legally allowed to film.
Also, if you are part of the law enforcement activity, you are allowed to film. So yes, if a cop walks up to you yelling and you are at least 8ft from the law enforcement activity, you are legally allowed to film.
> So yes, if a cop walks up to you yelling and you are at least 8ft from the law enforcement activity, you are legally allowed to film.
Yeah, good luck arguing with a cop.
Yeah, good luck arguing with a cop.
In what ridiculous scenario are cops forming a prayer circle around you? I’d assume in that made up world you’d become party to the police interaction and able to continue to film.
It’s not too different from “kettling” tactics.
This law only serves to tell police how close they need to move towards people filming in order to get them to stop so their abuses can be done without being recorded.
I think an officer approaching you makes you party to the interaction. I wouldn't shut mine off in this case, and I'd happily face court if an officer approached me while simultaneously claiming I'm not party to the interaction.
The officer's approach to my person is the only the interaction I'm videoing at that moment. Anything else is incidental.
The officer's approach to my person is the only the interaction I'm videoing at that moment. Anything else is incidental.
I think that one major issue here is that while you and I likely have the time and other resources to go fight something like this if it were to occur, many of the people for whom this law will be most relevant (areas where the most police activity occurs are often in impoverished areas) do not have that same luxury.
If you're barely scrapping by on an hourly job, and then get picked up or fined for this, oftentimes your only option is to accept the plea so you can get out of the courtroom and try to get back to work.
This law serves to provide a means for the police to place that burden on people who cannot bear it.
If you're barely scrapping by on an hourly job, and then get picked up or fined for this, oftentimes your only option is to accept the plea so you can get out of the courtroom and try to get back to work.
This law serves to provide a means for the police to place that burden on people who cannot bear it.
Good luck making that stand. Hopefully the Supreme Court will hear the case!
This is an amazing pirouette of logic. I have one simple question: Under this law, is it legal (not suggested, a good idea, etc. just literally legal) to observe the police from within 8ft without filming? If the answer is yes, then this law exists strictly to stop documentation of police (mis)conduct.
It's not illigal for police to lie and tell you you can't record. Hundreds of examples on YouTube.
That is absolutely not what the law says and that is not what the law does. https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/laws/0376.pdf
The law specifically singles out making video. It does not establish a general boundary for the definition of interference.
The law was obviously written in bad faith, and you are just rationalizing it.
The law specifically singles out making video. It does not establish a general boundary for the definition of interference.
The law was obviously written in bad faith, and you are just rationalizing it.
Thanks for the calm and reasonable response. Some of the comments here make me wonder how close people want to be to an ongoing incident? Inches? A foot? At a certain distance you're just in the way, 8 feet seems completely acceptable. Police are able to do their job without obstruction from onlookers, onlockers are close enough to see/record the police doing their job.
As close as I want to be, if it's a public space.
Maybe you could get a piggyback from the cops while they're dealing with something?
That would be assault.
If the issue is proximity to police for safety reasons, then whether or not a persion is videoing the incident has absolutely no bearing on the matter.
This also means that a person who is directly the subject of a police encounter can be found to be violating the law for the simple act of recording the encounter.
There's no provision for this within the text of the law.
The law as it stands is a prima facie first amendment violation.
This also means that a person who is directly the subject of a police encounter can be found to be violating the law for the simple act of recording the encounter.
There's no provision for this within the text of the law.
The law as it stands is a prima facie first amendment violation.
Police can tell you to step away whether you are holding the camera or not. The thing this does is that people who are close to what is actually happening will be scared to take camera and start filming. And if they do, the cops will be able to harass them.
> Courts have already upheld routinely that police can ask people who are not party to the interaction to step away and they can create a reasonable area around them and the scene and keep people out of it.
Can you cite said rulings? I can't find any on a cursory search.
>Now we have a law that says 8 ft is a reasonable distance in Arizona.
The law explicitly disclaims that it allows anyone to record police, so an officer is just as free as they were last year to claim that 50 feet is a reasonable distance for their safety.
Can you cite said rulings? I can't find any on a cursory search.
>Now we have a law that says 8 ft is a reasonable distance in Arizona.
The law explicitly disclaims that it allows anyone to record police, so an officer is just as free as they were last year to claim that 50 feet is a reasonable distance for their safety.
> If you are party to the police interaction you can film closer than 8 ft. If you are in a car as a passenger you can film the interaction and the police cannot ask you to stop. If you are a non-party person simply watching the interaction the police can now ask you to maintain a distance of 8 ft.
Maybe there are different versions going around? The text pasted here suggests even if you are a party to the interaction, police can claim filming is interfering and ask you to stop it.
Maybe there are different versions going around? The text pasted here suggests even if you are a party to the interaction, police can claim filming is interfering and ask you to stop it.
This is pretty transparently a law to keep people from collecting evidence of bad police behavior. There's been entirely too much of that and people are starting to question the unaccountable armed gangs that roam our cities. To fix people noticing that this might be bad, Arizona is enacting laws to ensure the police can continue to brutalize without repercussions.
It's unfortunate that this thread is full of bootlickers doing mental gymnastics to justify what is clearly an unjust law, but this is HN after all
It's unfortunate that this thread is full of bootlickers doing mental gymnastics to justify what is clearly an unjust law, but this is HN after all
> police very deliberately kill members of racial minorities
This is an inflammatory statement which demands some evidence. "Very deliberately" implies a knowledge of police state of mind. Do you have such knowledge?
AFAIK, studies of police shootings are pretty inconclusive in that respect. Do you have support for your statement?
This is an inflammatory statement which demands some evidence. "Very deliberately" implies a knowledge of police state of mind. Do you have such knowledge?
AFAIK, studies of police shootings are pretty inconclusive in that respect. Do you have support for your statement?
Police kill way too many people.
Whether there's a racial motivation or basis behind that cannot usually be determined by selectively watching videos. And scholarly sources have published studies that show the answer is complicated:
see https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01846-z and https://www.manhattan-institute.org/verbruggen-fatal-police-...
for two different takes on ths.
Whether there's a racial motivation or basis behind that cannot usually be determined by selectively watching videos. And scholarly sources have published studies that show the answer is complicated:
see https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01846-z and https://www.manhattan-institute.org/verbruggen-fatal-police-...
for two different takes on ths.
Defund the police was the stupidest policy in American History and in future retrospectives will almost certainly reveal the Democrats lost congressional seats because of this very bad idea. Crime is exploding across the country, so much so its a top issue in polls [1]. Police violence is not a real concern.
1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/04/18/white-hou...
1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/04/18/white-hou...
"defund the police" was not a Democratic party idea, it is the watered-down version of an abolitionist movement undergoing recuperation by local politicians that were trying to gain support from a potential base.
police action is in the top 10 leading causes of death for several demographics
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1821204116
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/LCWK1_2015.pdf
police action is in the top 10 leading causes of death for several demographics
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1821204116
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/LCWK1_2015.pdf
>Police violence is not a real concern.
Please tell me this is sarcasm.
Please tell me this is sarcasm.
It does not appear in the polls as any top issue of any concern. Violence and Gun violence are examples of real issues Americans care about
as of 2020 48% of adults and 83% of black adults consider police violence to be an extremely/very serious issue
https://apnews.com/article/us-news-ap-top-news-racial-injust...
https://apnews.com/article/us-news-ap-top-news-racial-injust...
>as of 2020
The GGP explicitly mentioned it's not an issue right now, and linked to a news story that was published in 2022.
The GGP explicitly mentioned it's not an issue right now, and linked to a news story that was published in 2022.
That’s like asking is red very red? ask people to list their concerns. It won’t make any list.
Police violence is not a subset of violence and gun violence?
No. It really isn't. There are tens of thousands of instances of gun violence and very few instances of police violence. When people say they are worried about being shot, they do not mean by police.
People are worried about school shootings, and there are fewer deaths annually by school shooter than there are by police annually. Just because something is statistically on the less common side doesn't mean people aren't worried about it (police killings are only like 5% compared to the number of homicides, and roughly 10% compared to the number of homicides by a stranger).
Of course if people were operating purely on the numbers, the thought of death by cop or school shooter would barely even register compared to the time thinking about by death from poor diet and exercise or from traffic accidents or consumption of tobacco/alcohol/drugs.
Personally I worry about police violence in part because it's one of the things the individual has the least control over. I can fire back at a robber, I can choose a better diet, I can send my kid to a school with better security policies, I can shoot someone trying to set fire to my house, I can choose not to drink/smoke. I can pick family and friends to hold close that I've personally screened before exposing them to my wife and child.
What I can't do is pick what police officer shows up or hassles me, and then If I'm forced to defend myself from a bad officer it's a near certainty I'll be executed or imprisoned assuming I survive the encounter. My only real recourse is to raise societal concerns to reform the police. Because I have very little individualized recourse unlike the much more common dangers (I can choose not to smoke for instance), it becomes a big concern over something that should appear rather little.
If you have any doubts about some of these issues in Arizona, by all means feel free to witness the anecdotal data point of the execution of Daniel Shaver in what can only be described as a psychotic version of Simon Says. The system even saw fit to rehire the officer that killed him just to give him a pension for "PTSD" from shooting an innocent man.
Of course if people were operating purely on the numbers, the thought of death by cop or school shooter would barely even register compared to the time thinking about by death from poor diet and exercise or from traffic accidents or consumption of tobacco/alcohol/drugs.
Personally I worry about police violence in part because it's one of the things the individual has the least control over. I can fire back at a robber, I can choose a better diet, I can send my kid to a school with better security policies, I can shoot someone trying to set fire to my house, I can choose not to drink/smoke. I can pick family and friends to hold close that I've personally screened before exposing them to my wife and child.
What I can't do is pick what police officer shows up or hassles me, and then If I'm forced to defend myself from a bad officer it's a near certainty I'll be executed or imprisoned assuming I survive the encounter. My only real recourse is to raise societal concerns to reform the police. Because I have very little individualized recourse unlike the much more common dangers (I can choose not to smoke for instance), it becomes a big concern over something that should appear rather little.
If you have any doubts about some of these issues in Arizona, by all means feel free to witness the anecdotal data point of the execution of Daniel Shaver in what can only be described as a psychotic version of Simon Says. The system even saw fit to rehire the officer that killed him just to give him a pension for "PTSD" from shooting an innocent man.
There are roughly 350 million people in this country. It’s surprising the number of people killed by police isn’t higher. Everyone contextualizes police shootings as if they all happen in their local city, so the numbers seem large.
I want this number as small as possible while not over correcting so much that we have other negative consequences (violent crime increases).
I want this number as small as possible while not over correcting so much that we have other negative consequences (violent crime increases).
Per capita we are (edit: #33) in the world and are an absolute leader among developed countries [0]
[0] https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/police-ki...
[0] https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/police-ki...
Yes but you have to discount ubiquitous firearm ownership. You can argue that is problematic pretty successfully but I don’t fault police officers (as a whole, obviously individual bad actors, again we have 350mm people here and 1mm police) having to shoot armed and dangerous individuals.
What is your concrete evidence that this is what drives the excess police shooting rates in the US?
Factor in only unarmed shootings and it’s tiny. The rest are mostly armed and dangerous people actively involved in violence. That it a shocking high number of suicide by cop.
You can watch a thousand videos if you care to and it’s eye opening. I made it a habit of watching the body cam footage of shootings in the news and it’s almost always clearly justified, though I do understand that there is a minority viewpoint that doesn’t consider any deadly shooting justified, even if it’s of an armed individual engaged in a crime.
You can watch a thousand videos if you care to and it’s eye opening. I made it a habit of watching the body cam footage of shootings in the news and it’s almost always clearly justified, though I do understand that there is a minority viewpoint that doesn’t consider any deadly shooting justified, even if it’s of an armed individual engaged in a crime.
I DO NOT agree with the other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32046231
deleted! And boy did I have this wrong!! (This comment has been edited to show the text, and where I was in error!)
Here's the text:
ARIZONA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Fifty-fifth Legislature Second Regular Session House: APPROP DPA 7-5-0-1 HB 2319: law enforcement activity; recording prohibition Sponsor: Representative Kavanagh, LD 23 House Engrossed Overview Outlines regulations for a person making a video recording (recording) of a law enforcement activity (activity). History Provisions
1. States that it is unlawful for a person to knowingly make a recording within eight feet of an activity and without the permission of a law enforcement officer (LEO). (Sec. 1)
2. Directs that for an activity occurring inside a closed structure on private property, a person authorized to be on the private property may make a video recording of the activity from an adjacent room that is less than eight feet away from the activity. (Sec. 1)
3. States a person may not make a video recording of an activity from within eight feet of an activity inside a closed structure on private property if the LEO determines the person is interfering with the activity or that is it not safe to be in the area. (Sec. 1)
4. Provides that a person who is the subject of the police contact may make a recording if doing so does not interfere with lawful police actions. (Sec. 1)
5. Asserts these provisions do not establish a right or authorize any person to make a video recording of an activity. (Sec. 1)
6. Classifies unlawfully recording an activity as a petty offense. (Sec. 1)
7. Classifies failing to comply with LEO verbal warnings regarding recording an activity or if the person has been previously convicted of unlawfully recording an activity as a class 3 misdemeanor (Sec. 1)
>and without the permission of a law enforcement officer (LEO). (Sec. 1)
That language is not in the stories talking about the bill, and said language is not in line with the First Amendment.
deleted! And boy did I have this wrong!! (This comment has been edited to show the text, and where I was in error!)
Here's the text:
ARIZONA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Fifty-fifth Legislature Second Regular Session House: APPROP DPA 7-5-0-1 HB 2319: law enforcement activity; recording prohibition Sponsor: Representative Kavanagh, LD 23 House Engrossed Overview Outlines regulations for a person making a video recording (recording) of a law enforcement activity (activity). History Provisions
1. States that it is unlawful for a person to knowingly make a recording within eight feet of an activity and without the permission of a law enforcement officer (LEO). (Sec. 1)
2. Directs that for an activity occurring inside a closed structure on private property, a person authorized to be on the private property may make a video recording of the activity from an adjacent room that is less than eight feet away from the activity. (Sec. 1)
3. States a person may not make a video recording of an activity from within eight feet of an activity inside a closed structure on private property if the LEO determines the person is interfering with the activity or that is it not safe to be in the area. (Sec. 1)
4. Provides that a person who is the subject of the police contact may make a recording if doing so does not interfere with lawful police actions. (Sec. 1)
5. Asserts these provisions do not establish a right or authorize any person to make a video recording of an activity. (Sec. 1)
6. Classifies unlawfully recording an activity as a petty offense. (Sec. 1)
7. Classifies failing to comply with LEO verbal warnings regarding recording an activity or if the person has been previously convicted of unlawfully recording an activity as a class 3 misdemeanor (Sec. 1)
Statute prohibits a person from obstructing governmental operations. A person commits obstructing governmental operations when the person uses threats or violence to hinder a peace officer from enforcing the law or acting under official authority. This offense is classified as a class
1 misdemeanor (A.R.S. 13-2402).
8. Defines law enforcement activity. (Sec. 1)
Prop 105 (45 votes) Prop 108 (40 votes) Emergency (40 votes) Initials FK Page 1
Fiscal Note>and without the permission of a law enforcement officer (LEO). (Sec. 1)
That language is not in the stories talking about the bill, and said language is not in line with the First Amendment.
I'm not sure why you think this law explicitly allows people to be 8' away and film. Instead, it criminalizes being closer than 8' and filming, while not superseding other laws that could be used to harass or prevent recording.
An explicit codification of the right to record and circumstances when it applies could be part of a decent compromise here, but this legislation isn't it.
An explicit codification of the right to record and circumstances when it applies could be part of a decent compromise here, but this legislation isn't it.
>and without the permission of a law enforcement officer (LEO). (Sec. 1)
I went to the original text, pasted here. That language is NOT OK. This law does NOT explicitly allow.
I went to the original text, pasted here. That language is NOT OK. This law does NOT explicitly allow.
Because previously, the cop could define their personal "safety zone" as literally whatever - 20ft? 50ft? It wasn't defined in the law. Now it is - it's 8ft. If you're further away than 8ft then it cannot be argued that your filming was unlawful.
> This is likely to strengthen the ability for people to document policing.
God I hope this is the stupidest thing I read today.
God I hope this is the stupidest thing I read today.
Well, it might be!
Edit: I put the text of it above. Here's where the ugly is: "and without the permission of a law enforcement officer (LEO). (Sec. 1)"
Yeah, that's not in line with the First Amendment at all.
>The National Press Photographers Association sent a letter to Mr. Kavanagh in February that said the bill violated constitutional free speech and press protections. The New York Times Company was one of more than 20 media organizations that signed the letter, which said that the law would be “unworkable” at protests and demonstrations.
I was thinking about the interactions I see sometimes on YT. Often, SCOTUS saying 10 feet is mentioned. The way I saw this was that often questioned bit of information was made explicit, and 8 feet.
The media appears to take it an entirely different way.
Just to be clear, I am an advocate of recording public officials, including the police of all kinds and perhaps didn't take the language of the bill in the same way many are.
Edit: I put the text of it above. Here's where the ugly is: "and without the permission of a law enforcement officer (LEO). (Sec. 1)"
Yeah, that's not in line with the First Amendment at all.
>The National Press Photographers Association sent a letter to Mr. Kavanagh in February that said the bill violated constitutional free speech and press protections. The New York Times Company was one of more than 20 media organizations that signed the letter, which said that the law would be “unworkable” at protests and demonstrations.
I was thinking about the interactions I see sometimes on YT. Often, SCOTUS saying 10 feet is mentioned. The way I saw this was that often questioned bit of information was made explicit, and 8 feet.
The media appears to take it an entirely different way.
Just to be clear, I am an advocate of recording public officials, including the police of all kinds and perhaps didn't take the language of the bill in the same way many are.
[deleted]
This is tricky since it delves into first amendment territory. I wonder if it may be overturned by a higher court.
The original law it was proposed to be at 15 ft and they changed it to be 8 ft because of questions like this. Since courts have already upheld that police can keep non-party bystanders away from a scene at a reasonable distance codifying an 8 ft limit as a minimum reasonable distance is unlikely to be overturned by a court.
Considering that police training routinely would keep people 20 to 25 ft away codifying this minimum distance at 8 ft is actually a big win and is probably closer than what courts would allow should it be challenged.
It's also important to keep in mind that this distance does not apply to people who are party to the police interaction nor does it apply to passengers in a vehicle that are. It also does not apply to people in a house or a confined private space who are not a party to the police interaction. There are a great many exceptions to this if you actually read the law. Basically the 8-ft distance only applies to people who are not a party to the police interaction.
Considering that police training routinely would keep people 20 to 25 ft away codifying this minimum distance at 8 ft is actually a big win and is probably closer than what courts would allow should it be challenged.
It's also important to keep in mind that this distance does not apply to people who are party to the police interaction nor does it apply to passengers in a vehicle that are. It also does not apply to people in a house or a confined private space who are not a party to the police interaction. There are a great many exceptions to this if you actually read the law. Basically the 8-ft distance only applies to people who are not a party to the police interaction.
> Considering that police training routinely would keep people 20 to 25 ft away codifying this minimum distance at 8 ft is actually a big win
" C. THIS SECTION DOES NOT ESTABLISH A RIGHT OR AUTHORIZE ANY PERSON TO MAKE A VIDEO RECORDING OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY."
So, police can still attempt to keep people 25' away, and use other laws, they just can't charge them with this new misdemeanor.
" C. THIS SECTION DOES NOT ESTABLISH A RIGHT OR AUTHORIZE ANY PERSON TO MAKE A VIDEO RECORDING OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY."
So, police can still attempt to keep people 25' away, and use other laws, they just can't charge them with this new misdemeanor.
> Considering that police training routinely would keep people 20 to 25 ft away codifying this minimum distance at 8 ft is actually a big win and is probably closer than what courts would allow should it be challenged.
This says nothing of either the constitutionality or propriety of keeping people 25 feet away, instead using it to bootstrap other limitations. The police are trained to do all sorts of absurd and patently unconstitutional things; the fact of that matter isn’t strong support for a law that further enables them to do so.
This says nothing of either the constitutionality or propriety of keeping people 25 feet away, instead using it to bootstrap other limitations. The police are trained to do all sorts of absurd and patently unconstitutional things; the fact of that matter isn’t strong support for a law that further enables them to do so.
My guess is it’s overturned at some point, winds up in SCOTUS’s lap, and they bend over backwards to justify it’s legality. Probably with Thomas writing the majority opinion and Sotomayor writing a well-reasoned yet scathing dissent.
Well, if the originalists are going to originalise, there's nothing in USC about cameras which means you therefore don't have any rights to use them in any circumstance and recording the police is verboten.
Now if you want to use a pencil and sketch pad ...
Now if you want to use a pencil and sketch pad ...
It’s almost as if the Ninth Amendment doesn’t exist to them. I guess they stopped reading somewhere between 2 and 8.
I used to have some faith in the consistency of the appeals circuits but it has become a farce in my lifetime
Using a little deductive reasoning, If the law was really about officer safety, you could remove all reference to video recording, and just make it about people staying away from “police activity’ / not interfering with investigations, but then that would mean no one could approach a police officer. And since if I’m not filming I can still spproach, one has to ask, is it more likely that people film AND assault/interfere with the police, or just interfere/assault (I’d posit the later)? So it’s clear that this about stoping filming period, the pretense that it’s about anything else seems pretty hard to justify
How much 8 feet is depends entirely on the mood of that officer, and possibly whether the person with the camera is black or white.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The first amendment doesn't necessarily directly apply (our understanding of the word "press" has broadened with time), but it is rather certain that this law will push us to improve our understanding of precisely where the rights of citizens and media will begin and end in practice.
The first amendment doesn't necessarily directly apply (our understanding of the word "press" has broadened with time), but it is rather certain that this law will push us to improve our understanding of precisely where the rights of citizens and media will begin and end in practice.
Remember when the police rioted in 2020, shooting or beating lawyers and press in the streets? First amendment doesn't mean shit to cops.
[deleted]
Even the Constitutional Originalists are not so Literalist as to interpret press as meaning literal printing presses, nor arms as black powder muskets, nor the things subject to search and seizure as being strictly the tangibles locked in ones home. IIRC there's already stacks of precedent establishing all the forms of digital media as protected free speech.
[deleted]
How would this law impact modern cars? My Tesla Model Y has cameras pointed in all directions. The car is continually using these cameras to perform functions and will inevitably record police. Teslas even have a dashcam feature that allows you to save footage to a thumb drive. I don’t see how cars like Teslas wouldn’t be illegal in AZ.
Paradoxically, this law could lead to more filming, because it codifies the fact that filming beyond eight feet is perfectly okay. That may have been legally true before, but now the police have a clear, bright rule. This might be good for both police and bystanders.
C. this section does not establish a right or authorize any person to make a video recording of law enforcement activity.
This sounds good; a citizen can now refer to The Law(tm) and keep filming any police encounter with the general population from a distance of 8ft.
I enjoy yelling about abuse of power as much as the next guy, but from the looks of it, this law empowers the citizenry.
I enjoy yelling about abuse of power as much as the next guy, but from the looks of it, this law empowers the citizenry.
In the US, you have a constitutional right to record the police. This law attempts to limit the bounds of that right, making it strictly more limited than before.
In other words: it was already the law. This is an attempt to limit civic participation and oversight, and to disempower citizens.
In other words: it was already the law. This is an attempt to limit civic participation and oversight, and to disempower citizens.
But surely the police are well within their rights to have you do it from a safe distance?
8ft seems a reasonable compromise; close enough to capture what is going on, far enough away to not interfere in an ongoing struggle, for instance.
8ft seems a reasonable compromise; close enough to capture what is going on, far enough away to not interfere in an ongoing struggle, for instance.
It’s not a reasonable compromise in many scenarios, ones that the police must be recorded by the public in: crowded streets and public transport, unconstitutional crackdowns on protestors, being cornered by cops in semiprivate areas, and so forth.
The police have no such right not to be recorded. They are afforded legal recourses against interference, but simply recording them does not constitute interference in any reasonable sense.
The police have no such right not to be recorded. They are afforded legal recourses against interference, but simply recording them does not constitute interference in any reasonable sense.
It is already illegal to interfere.
From the article itself it is not clear whether the law applies to absolutely all filming or only filming by third parties.
Edit: yes, I meant bystanders.
Edit: yes, I meant bystanders.
Assuming by “third party” you mean bystanders: yes, the law only applies to them.
That’s one of many reasons why the law is absurd: the police already have (more than) adequate legal cover to deal with interference in their activities. They don’t need a law that specifically carves recording out for punishment, unless the real goal is to stifle civic participation.
That’s one of many reasons why the law is absurd: the police already have (more than) adequate legal cover to deal with interference in their activities. They don’t need a law that specifically carves recording out for punishment, unless the real goal is to stifle civic participation.
I don’t see language that excludes personal interactions with LE ; help me understand?
Item B of the amended law[1]:
> notwithstanding subsection A of this section, a person who is the subject of police contact may record the encounter if the person is not interfering with lawful police actions, including searching, handcuffing or administering a field sobriety test. The occupants of a vehicle that is the subject of a police stop may record the encounter if the occupants are not interfering with lawful police actions.
In other words this law targets bystanders, i.e. concerned fellow citizens. It probably does this to avoid the trivial standing that recording as a bystander offers, meaning that the limitation there is more of "we think we can get away with this" and less "we think this is the right stopping point."
[1]: https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/laws/0376.htm
> notwithstanding subsection A of this section, a person who is the subject of police contact may record the encounter if the person is not interfering with lawful police actions, including searching, handcuffing or administering a field sobriety test. The occupants of a vehicle that is the subject of a police stop may record the encounter if the occupants are not interfering with lawful police actions.
In other words this law targets bystanders, i.e. concerned fellow citizens. It probably does this to avoid the trivial standing that recording as a bystander offers, meaning that the limitation there is more of "we think we can get away with this" and less "we think this is the right stopping point."
[1]: https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/laws/0376.htm
Thanks
I assume you’ve missunderstood the ramifications of this. Traffic stops are all within 8 feet, this means that no traffic stop can be filmed in Arizona, many people get assaulted or killed by police in traffic stops. If the police are within 8 feet of you then they are able to assault you and claim you attacked them and any recording you have won’t legally count even if it shows the policeman is lying. This law helps on group of people, police. Specifically, dirty police. A good police officer would say “I see you’re filming and I’m happy for you to keep filming even if we have to come within 8 feet”
The law doesn't say that. If you're involved with the police, you can film from whatever distance. Unrelated parties need to be at least 8 feet away.
This sounds super-reasonable to me. 8 feet is close enough to capture what's going on, but far enough to not interfere or escalate in a situation.
In a tense situation, it's not always easy to tell who might or might not be a danger to the police officer. This seems to set a reasonable bound which avoids accidents or incidents. Arrests are tense situations.
Imagine you're a police officer arresting a dangerous criminal, and their friend comes within 3 feet. They're filming you. You don't know if they're an accomplice or not. What do you do?
Now, it's easy. 8 feet away is okay.
This sounds super-reasonable to me. 8 feet is close enough to capture what's going on, but far enough to not interfere or escalate in a situation.
In a tense situation, it's not always easy to tell who might or might not be a danger to the police officer. This seems to set a reasonable bound which avoids accidents or incidents. Arrests are tense situations.
Imagine you're a police officer arresting a dangerous criminal, and their friend comes within 3 feet. They're filming you. You don't know if they're an accomplice or not. What do you do?
Now, it's easy. 8 feet away is okay.
Your analogy doesn’t adhere to the bounds proscribed by this new law: if the officer has a legitimate reason to believe the other person is an accomplice in the crime, then they’re involved in the “law enforcement operation” and the recording law doesn’t apply to them.
This is bad law: it takes a set of restrictions that already exist, and adds additional language to them in order to chill civic participation. The police already have a cornucopia of powers available to them; they don’t need a completely arbitrary carve-out for just the act of recording their actions.
This is bad law: it takes a set of restrictions that already exist, and adds additional language to them in order to chill civic participation. The police already have a cornucopia of powers available to them; they don’t need a completely arbitrary carve-out for just the act of recording their actions.
I think, in the situation I gave, there isn't legitimate reason to believe either way. All you know is you're holding down a suspect who has a knife, and their brother is walking up awfully close up to you. You don't know if they're:
1. About to smack you in the head to save their brother
2. Trying to make a nice video recording
Adrenaline is flowing, and you have 1.5 seconds to decide. Which way do you guess?
The law seems reasonable in concept. Lots of flaws in the language, as is being pointed out in this discussion (although sometimes incorrectly). What bugs me most is: "C. this section does not establish a right or authorize any person to make a video recording of law enforcement activity."
1. About to smack you in the head to save their brother
2. Trying to make a nice video recording
Adrenaline is flowing, and you have 1.5 seconds to decide. Which way do you guess?
The law seems reasonable in concept. Lots of flaws in the language, as is being pointed out in this discussion (although sometimes incorrectly). What bugs me most is: "C. this section does not establish a right or authorize any person to make a video recording of law enforcement activity."
If you are sitting in a car next to someone being arrested it's very easy to be within 8 feet. If a person is within 3 ft without filming is everything fine? Who knows, but the act of filming doesn't seem like a reasonable differentiator between the two.
It's not easy because now you can be arrested for filming the police encounter and who's gonna say you were more than 8ft away from the interaction? You, of course.
But then it's your word against the police officer's word, and (1) police are willing to lie, and (2) the words of a police officer almost always carry more weight in a court proceeding.
This doesn't actually change anything because if you're intending to interfere with a police interaction, you're going to interfere with a police interaction. That's already illegal. Nothing changes.
If you're only intending to record the interaction, you now have this stupid law to worry about. More of our rights being restricted, with people applauding it under the guise of police safety.
Also, keep in mind that police in the US already have vast protections like qualified immunity, safety and weapons training, they're armed, and they have a legal right to violence. I don't understand what sorts of protections they're desperately in need of.
But then it's your word against the police officer's word, and (1) police are willing to lie, and (2) the words of a police officer almost always carry more weight in a court proceeding.
This doesn't actually change anything because if you're intending to interfere with a police interaction, you're going to interfere with a police interaction. That's already illegal. Nothing changes.
If you're only intending to record the interaction, you now have this stupid law to worry about. More of our rights being restricted, with people applauding it under the guise of police safety.
Also, keep in mind that police in the US already have vast protections like qualified immunity, safety and weapons training, they're armed, and they have a legal right to violence. I don't understand what sorts of protections they're desperately in need of.
One would hope if you're being arrested for being closer than 8 feet, when you're not, you'll have video evidence to the contrary (kinda by definition). It might not be precise enough to tell 7'11" from 8'1", but otherwise, you have actual forensic evidence to tell who was wrong and who was right.
That sounds great but now you're in court and having to prove that you were further than 8 feet. So you were harassed by police, arrested, charged with this crime, and sent to court. This is just another tool for police to harass citizens that is completely unnecessary for the safety of the public.
Most likely, things don't go that far. Prosecutors don't want to take losing cases. There are no high-stakes consequences, as there ought to be, but it also doesn't look good for anyone involved.
Your bigger picture, though, is smack-on. By the time you hit the legal system -- criminal or civil -- you've already lost. A typical case will bankrupt most people in the US. Thing is, one can always come up with an excuse to sue / prosecute someone. There's a deeper problem there which this law doesn't change.
I'd rather address root causes.
Your bigger picture, though, is smack-on. By the time you hit the legal system -- criminal or civil -- you've already lost. A typical case will bankrupt most people in the US. Thing is, one can always come up with an excuse to sue / prosecute someone. There's a deeper problem there which this law doesn't change.
I'd rather address root causes.
Even if it doesn't go to court, just being threatened with this crime might be enough to get someone to stop recording a police interaction. So again the law is to the detriment of the public. There is no upside to this law aside from it being a useful tool for police intimidation.
In a tense situation, it’s also not always easy to judge distance. Do you think a cop who doesn’t want to be filmed is going to whip out a tape measure or just start smacking around the videographer and say they were 7’ 11” away?
[deleted]
So hypothetically, if one is being illegally beaten by a person who happens to be an on-duty police officer, all the victim has to do to achieve justice is turn on their camera to record the incident to gather evidence. Bystanders can feel good that they’re ignoring the incident and carrying on with their days, as they know that it’s the victim’s responsibility to record their own beating.
... or record from 10 feet away.
10 feet away from what, exactly? A ‘law enforcement activity’? Is that area defined in a meaningful way?
What if a bystander records 10 feet away, but a second person stands in between and records 5 feet away? Has the area of law enforcement activity expanded to include the first bystander because of the second bystander is breaking a law?
I guess bystanders who didn’t bring their tape measure can just run the risk of recording and let the courts shake it out, right?
What if a bystander records 10 feet away, but a second person stands in between and records 5 feet away? Has the area of law enforcement activity expanded to include the first bystander because of the second bystander is breaking a law?
I guess bystanders who didn’t bring their tape measure can just run the risk of recording and let the courts shake it out, right?
now what happens when a cop walks towards someone to get them to stop filming?
same thing that happens when you push a cop away for yelling at you 2 inches from your face: now you’re on the ground
same thing that happens when you push a cop away for yelling at you 2 inches from your face: now you’re on the ground
I believe that there's a specific exception to this law if the police are addressing the person filming i.e. you can film your own interaction with police within 8 feet but not someone else's. I can imagine that it would cause issues with traffic stops if the passenger starts to film the interaction.
Yes but what if I'm a passenger who wants to film a stop of the driver and am ordered to stay in the car along with the driver? My 1A rights are then restricted?
Passengers in involved cars are also allowed to film explicitly by the law.
The law specifically calls out the case of passengers in the car being allowed to film a traffic stop.
I guess you could argue that if the officer orders you to stay in the vehicle, then they are interacting directly with you, but I don't know how that would play out in court.
That's not going to work.
a) The police don't give a shit about the law, nor are they required to know it
b) They'll just walk towards you, say you're breaking the law for filming, break your phone, beat the shit out of you and/or shoot you
c) It was always legal to do so. Now it isn't.
a) The police don't give a shit about the law, nor are they required to know it
b) They'll just walk towards you, say you're breaking the law for filming, break your phone, beat the shit out of you and/or shoot you
c) It was always legal to do so. Now it isn't.
Yes this is my read. When dealing with police and regulating them in some of these really bad departments (Lovelace, CO, I'm looking at you, but LA, NY, any major city), you have to assume they will think of anything to get around the regulations, do whatever they want, and cover their ass. Right now it's so blatant, they know they're being recorded and still violate civil rights, and still only get a paid vacation as punishment most of the time, if that. We need to start holding the mayors accountable for police misdeeds as much as the police themselves.
The loophole for the cops is that they can walk towards you and claim you are within 8 feet.
I get this possibility.
The potential problem for the police that I’ve seen is that when there’s an arrest from some resisting person and a sympathetic crowd gathers around to record and voice some words of protest, it’s a chaotic situation. You have people going crazy hooting and hollering and it’s a bad situation to be in even if the cops are 100% doing the right thing by the book. I don’t know what’s the right distance, but I get that cops want to maintain some distance from crowds so they’re not swarmed.
In the end, I don’t know what can be done other than mandating personal recording equipment that can’t physically be switched off.
The potential problem for the police that I’ve seen is that when there’s an arrest from some resisting person and a sympathetic crowd gathers around to record and voice some words of protest, it’s a chaotic situation. You have people going crazy hooting and hollering and it’s a bad situation to be in even if the cops are 100% doing the right thing by the book. I don’t know what’s the right distance, but I get that cops want to maintain some distance from crowds so they’re not swarmed.
In the end, I don’t know what can be done other than mandating personal recording equipment that can’t physically be switched off.
> even if the cops are 100% doing the right thing by the book
Public scrutiny is only as issue for those who don't want to be publicly scrutinized. If they are doing the right thing, they should have not problem. They don't want to be scrutinized because they are 100% NOT doing the right thing by the book.
Public scrutiny is only as issue for those who don't want to be publicly scrutinized. If they are doing the right thing, they should have not problem. They don't want to be scrutinized because they are 100% NOT doing the right thing by the book.
> If they are doing the right thing, they should have not problem.
This sounds awfully close to the bullshit line I've gotten from cops on several different occasions that I've been stopped and questioned, "If you haven't done anything wrong, you wouldn't be nervous."
I don't know if this law is a good one or not, but people (cop or otherwise) will always be uncomfortable when there's a serious imbalance of power.
This sounds awfully close to the bullshit line I've gotten from cops on several different occasions that I've been stopped and questioned, "If you haven't done anything wrong, you wouldn't be nervous."
I don't know if this law is a good one or not, but people (cop or otherwise) will always be uncomfortable when there's a serious imbalance of power.
It seems obvious to me that there should always be a serious imbalance of power away from the police.
That is, they should only feel “comfortable” in any situation and willing to carry out any action if they feel like they have the support of the local citizens (see also the Peelian principles [1]).
In that vein this seems like another regressive step.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles
That is, they should only feel “comfortable” in any situation and willing to carry out any action if they feel like they have the support of the local citizens (see also the Peelian principles [1]).
In that vein this seems like another regressive step.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles
Ironic, right? Police officers are public servants and this concerns public scrutiny by taxpayers who pay their salaries. I hope you can see the difference between this and what you hear from the cops making you nervous.
> They don't want to be scrutinized because they are 100% NOT doing the right thing by the book.
Do you think a crowd of angry people are experts in proper police procedure? Is the mob ever objective about what they see? Is a crowd going to understand that when somebody is hopped up on meth/cocaine that maybe they’re going to be hella strong and hard to take down and it’s going to take some actual force to stop them?
You’ll have angry people screaming bloody murder regardless of whether or not the police are doing the wrong thing in some cases.
I agree, scrutiny on the police is good, but a mob of people screaming from a few feet away during an arrest isn’t the thing to bring about a safe outcome for anybody and I can easily see that happening and being something that needlessly escalates a situation.
If you see somebody getting arrested and are concerned about their safety, I’d totally say filming the encounter from a safe distance is justified and a good idea, I just don’t think a crowd of people going a few feet away is good.
Downvote me if you want, I don’t care. I’m just recommending what I think would likely be best for a safe police encounter
Do you think a crowd of angry people are experts in proper police procedure? Is the mob ever objective about what they see? Is a crowd going to understand that when somebody is hopped up on meth/cocaine that maybe they’re going to be hella strong and hard to take down and it’s going to take some actual force to stop them?
You’ll have angry people screaming bloody murder regardless of whether or not the police are doing the wrong thing in some cases.
I agree, scrutiny on the police is good, but a mob of people screaming from a few feet away during an arrest isn’t the thing to bring about a safe outcome for anybody and I can easily see that happening and being something that needlessly escalates a situation.
If you see somebody getting arrested and are concerned about their safety, I’d totally say filming the encounter from a safe distance is justified and a good idea, I just don’t think a crowd of people going a few feet away is good.
Downvote me if you want, I don’t care. I’m just recommending what I think would likely be best for a safe police encounter
A specific distance isn't going to prevent a crowd of people from forming; but it does it give police officers the ability to punish/threaten/intimidate witnesses for something that was previously legal.
I hope people don't downvote you for expressing an incorrect opinion, but I do hope that you understand that the purpose of this law is 100% about preventing scrutiny. The angry mob scenario that you describe is fiction used by police officers to prevent you from looking into their job performance.
I hope people don't downvote you for expressing an incorrect opinion, but I do hope that you understand that the purpose of this law is 100% about preventing scrutiny. The angry mob scenario that you describe is fiction used by police officers to prevent you from looking into their job performance.
The responses to my posts in this thread such as "Fuck what they want" only reinforce to me that the proverbial mob isn't capable of being objective about many police actions.
Having a crowd of people trying to scream a few feet away from the cops trying to apprehend a resisting person is a recipe for disaster.
Having a crowd of people trying to scream a few feet away from the cops trying to apprehend a resisting person is a recipe for disaster.
this is dangerously close to saying you don't need privacy if you have nothing to hide.
the public doesn't know the full situation, they don't have police training, the video might be cut or not capture everything the police saw/heard.
police should be held accountable for sure, but we need to let them do their jobs without villainizing everything they do.
the public doesn't know the full situation, they don't have police training, the video might be cut or not capture everything the police saw/heard.
police should be held accountable for sure, but we need to let them do their jobs without villainizing everything they do.
>this is dangerously close to saying you don't need privacy if you have nothing to hide.
Yes, philosophically it's different because when the police say it (nothing to hide), they are trying to violate our civil rights through trickery or whatnot. In this context, it's the citizens making sure the government actors (police) are doing what they are legally required / allowed to do. The government run by the people shouldn't be hiding anything from the people, unless it's absolutely necessary. How can a country run democratically if the voters are in the dark and can't find out what's going on?
Yes, philosophically it's different because when the police say it (nothing to hide), they are trying to violate our civil rights through trickery or whatnot. In this context, it's the citizens making sure the government actors (police) are doing what they are legally required / allowed to do. The government run by the people shouldn't be hiding anything from the people, unless it's absolutely necessary. How can a country run democratically if the voters are in the dark and can't find out what's going on?
They should know what's going on, but they need the full story, not just what they perceive to be happening because they don't know the suspect is on drugs, or just robbed a store, or is a violent felon. I don't know how we do that. Body cams on the police sounds good, but even that doesn't capture the full picture I think. Maybe also rotate cops partners occasionally so they don't form bad habits.
Maybe a bad example, but I don't expect non-programmers to be able to review my code. I don't know how we can expect non-police to properly review police behavior unless it's outrageously wrong.
Maybe a bad example, but I don't expect non-programmers to be able to review my code. I don't know how we can expect non-police to properly review police behavior unless it's outrageously wrong.
> this is dangerously close to saying you don't need privacy if you have nothing to hide.
We empower police to harass, detain, and use deadly force against the public.
This power has to be counterbalanced by accountability. If the way they use that power cannot stand up against public scrutiny, then they shouldn't have it.
> but we need to let them do their jobs without villainizing everything they do.
We wouldn't do that if they didn't so consistently fail at doing their jobs, or at being held accountable for those failures.
We empower police to harass, detain, and use deadly force against the public.
This power has to be counterbalanced by accountability. If the way they use that power cannot stand up against public scrutiny, then they shouldn't have it.
> but we need to let them do their jobs without villainizing everything they do.
We wouldn't do that if they didn't so consistently fail at doing their jobs, or at being held accountable for those failures.
> Public scrutiny is only as issue for those who don't want to be publicly scrutinized.
Scrutiny on police isn't the issue. I'd mandate for cops and cop cars to be equipped with a dozen+ cameras if I could and it should be legal to always record cops in public.
The issue is a loud crowd forming around an already tough situation and making it worse for everybody. Think about what happens if you have 30 people shouting loudly around a guy resisting arrest and jostling for position trying to get a video for their social media and it's a recipe for disaster. Cops can't communicate with each other and the guy being arrested can't hear commands. It makes an already bad situation more stressful and easier to go wrong.
I get wanting to monitor cops (I'm 100% supporting that) but you can't have a crowd forming 5 feet from a tussle shouting and expect things to be improved.
Scrutiny on police isn't the issue. I'd mandate for cops and cop cars to be equipped with a dozen+ cameras if I could and it should be legal to always record cops in public.
The issue is a loud crowd forming around an already tough situation and making it worse for everybody. Think about what happens if you have 30 people shouting loudly around a guy resisting arrest and jostling for position trying to get a video for their social media and it's a recipe for disaster. Cops can't communicate with each other and the guy being arrested can't hear commands. It makes an already bad situation more stressful and easier to go wrong.
I get wanting to monitor cops (I'm 100% supporting that) but you can't have a crowd forming 5 feet from a tussle shouting and expect things to be improved.
> I get that cops want to maintain some distance from crowds so they’re not swarmed.
Fuck what they want.
Fuck what they want.
ah, so police need access to my pornhub searches, alexa recordings, and phone location becayse if I have nothing to hide I have nothing to fear.
but when the shoe is on the other foot suddenly it's a problem?
but when the shoe is on the other foot suddenly it's a problem?
[deleted]
[deleted]
They also put up crime scene tape.
It doesn't sound good. It's a law restricting something very important - ability to record people who were granted special powers, including killing. I don't understand the reasoning. Anything in public and anything visible from public areas should be allowed to be recorded.
no, the default is that it's legal to film within 8 ft of police.
All laws are inherently restrictive.
All laws are inherently restrictive.
They really aren’t unless you have an incomplete model of how the legal system works. This is a good example of this.
There is no default. Court cases have upheld that it is legal for cops to establish a safety perimeter, even when that distance is undefined. Thus a cop could argue that the necessary safe distance is an arbitrary number like 25 feet or 50 feet.
This law defines it as 8, potentially giving you greater freedom.
The legal system as a whole is inherently restrictive, but individual laws within it may be otherwise.
There is no default. Court cases have upheld that it is legal for cops to establish a safety perimeter, even when that distance is undefined. Thus a cop could argue that the necessary safe distance is an arbitrary number like 25 feet or 50 feet.
This law defines it as 8, potentially giving you greater freedom.
The legal system as a whole is inherently restrictive, but individual laws within it may be otherwise.
> This law defines it as 8, potentially giving you greater freedom.
No, this law establishes a new crime and penalty for being closer than 8 feet, without precluding enforcement under other laws:
" C. THIS SECTION DOES NOT ESTABLISH A RIGHT OR AUTHORIZE ANY PERSON TO MAKE A VIDEO RECORDING OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY. "
https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/HB2319S.pdf
No, this law establishes a new crime and penalty for being closer than 8 feet, without precluding enforcement under other laws:
" C. THIS SECTION DOES NOT ESTABLISH A RIGHT OR AUTHORIZE ANY PERSON TO MAKE A VIDEO RECORDING OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY. "
https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/HB2319S.pdf
It's funny. Authorities can surveil the entire globe with complete impunity but the second citizens start surveilling them all sorts of laws are passed making it illegal.
Sousveillance should be a right of every single citizen. This right should be established and authorized.
Sousveillance should be a right of every single citizen. This right should be established and authorized.
“Sousveillance”, as a term, was new to me.
In case it’s new to anyone else:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sousveillance
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18493797
In case it’s new to anyone else:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sousveillance
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18493797
Right but much of law is interpretation, by design or by chance, and there’s a very strong likelihood that courts will now interpret 8’ to be the safe distance as a result of this. It’s very probable that before this law, cops could have moved you, say, 25’ away when you were trying to record and gotten away with it in court, whereas now they probably wouldn’t.
But for an even less theoretical example, state laws have explicitly legalized marijuana, for instance. If you’ve been in a state before and after (I have, as have most Americans) you saw your freedoms increase (and restrictions decrease) as a result.
But for an even less theoretical example, state laws have explicitly legalized marijuana, for instance. If you’ve been in a state before and after (I have, as have most Americans) you saw your freedoms increase (and restrictions decrease) as a result.
If cops argued before that they needed to keep the public 20' away from incident A-- "totally not" to prevent filming, but for public safety-- that argument doesn't vanish or really weaken now.
I understand what you're saying, but this doesn't establish some kind of right to be within 8' of an officer and probably doesn't change the evaluation of most situations substantially.
Officers have a whole lot of reasons to want to keep the public farther back- Tueller drills, if I were scuffling with some dude I'd not want a potentially-hostile observer 10' away, standard training about perimeters in static situations, etc. Those don't evaporate, and they generally can be argued for even if the real motivation is preventing filming.
> But for an even less theoretical example, state laws have explicitly legalized marijuana, for instance.
Yah, I'm not interested in arguing the philosophical question of whether all laws are in some sense prescriptive-- nor of whether removing past restrictions counts as adding a law. I just don't think the AZ public is better off or more able to film with this new law.
I understand what you're saying, but this doesn't establish some kind of right to be within 8' of an officer and probably doesn't change the evaluation of most situations substantially.
Officers have a whole lot of reasons to want to keep the public farther back- Tueller drills, if I were scuffling with some dude I'd not want a potentially-hostile observer 10' away, standard training about perimeters in static situations, etc. Those don't evaporate, and they generally can be argued for even if the real motivation is preventing filming.
> But for an even less theoretical example, state laws have explicitly legalized marijuana, for instance.
Yah, I'm not interested in arguing the philosophical question of whether all laws are in some sense prescriptive-- nor of whether removing past restrictions counts as adding a law. I just don't think the AZ public is better off or more able to film with this new law.
> All laws are inherently restrictive.
While the maxim "Everything which is not forbidden is allowed" generally holds true for individuals (but not organisations), it is not true that all laws are restrictive. See for example the first amendement of the US constitution which is restrictive towards the legislature and sanctifies rights for individuals or from a more international point of view the first article of the Declaration of Human Rights which states that all men are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
While the maxim "Everything which is not forbidden is allowed" generally holds true for individuals (but not organisations), it is not true that all laws are restrictive. See for example the first amendement of the US constitution which is restrictive towards the legislature and sanctifies rights for individuals or from a more international point of view the first article of the Declaration of Human Rights which states that all men are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
> All laws are inherently restrictive.
Repeals, franchises, permits, etc may include restrictions, but you might be able to imagine circumstances when laws are not uniformly restrictive.
Repeals, franchises, permits, etc may include restrictions, but you might be able to imagine circumstances when laws are not uniformly restrictive.
> All laws are inherently restrictive.
This isn't the case at all - law can be a precedent that something is permitted, for example.
This isn't the case at all - law can be a precedent that something is permitted, for example.
Can a new law explicitly permitting behavior that wasn’t previously prohibited really be said to be alleviating restrictions?
Laws are inherently restrictive in the sense that things which aren’t prohibited by law, are permissible. So a law which codifies that something is permissible is useful for clarity, but it doesn’t really release citizens of restrictions.
Laws are inherently restrictive in the sense that things which aren’t prohibited by law, are permissible. So a law which codifies that something is permissible is useful for clarity, but it doesn’t really release citizens of restrictions.
Yes because things can be restricted due to legal precedent determined by a judge, rather than due to a law, but a law can redefine it to be less restrictive. Imagine as a hypothetical (I know next to nothing about AZ law) that AZ had a law that said cops could enforce a minimum distance from which you could record for safety reasons. Hypothetically, a court case could rule that a cop that wouldn’t let people record from under 25’ was following said law. There’s no law that specifies 25’ in this hypothetical, but now there’s a court precedent that effectively sets it at that.
So the law defining it as 8’ just gave everyone 17’ feet of freedom.
Also state laws can legalize something that was federally illegal, sort of. See marijuana legalization. (This is really technical and rests on the commerce clause and is debatable, but what’s not debatable is people can now open up a shop and sell weed without ending up in a federal prison whereas before they could not, so freedom has increased.)
So the law defining it as 8’ just gave everyone 17’ feet of freedom.
Also state laws can legalize something that was federally illegal, sort of. See marijuana legalization. (This is really technical and rests on the commerce clause and is debatable, but what’s not debatable is people can now open up a shop and sell weed without ending up in a federal prison whereas before they could not, so freedom has increased.)
>So the law defining it as 8’ just gave everyone 17’ feet of freedom.
A law, but not this law, which explicitly does not grant any right.
A law, but not this law, which explicitly does not grant any right.
But the interpretation of the law likely will - as soon as a judge rules you were 9 feet away and so ok, that establishes a precedent, based on this law.
Why would a judge ignore the clause that explicitly states that it doesn't grant any right or authorize any person to record?
At nine feet away, this law has no bearing and the earlier precedent should still apply.
At nine feet away, this law has no bearing and the earlier precedent should still apply.
[deleted]
until the police starts charging at you and now you're under 8ft.
If the police begin to charge at you because you are recording you now become party to the police interaction and you can record under the 8-ft distance. I know on emotional issues like police interactions logic is hard to follow but logic is still a thing.
Logic didn't seem to have been a thing in the Daniel Shaver shooting, which happened in this state. I thought the bodycam footage was a pretty clear illustration of a terrified and confused unarmed victim doing his best to follow unclear instructions being shot by a cop who, in the end, clearly had some facts wrong. And the cop was then acquitted, got re-hired and given a pension because he had a disabling case of PTSD from the incident. Imagine what a state like that could get away with if video wasn't even public, or how easily a cop could get away with intimidating people who are even 8+ feet away.
I wouldn't be quick to trust this law if I lived in Arizona and tended to be harassed by police.
I wouldn't be quick to trust this law if I lived in Arizona and tended to be harassed by police.
All they need to do is claim you are interfering with their law enforcement activity and they can say you can't record your own interaction.
I would consider it barely logical to think the cop approaching you specifically so they can claim you're in the way of their operations and gain an excuse to stop your filming (https://youtu.be/VWHOz5sLk-c https://youtu.be/L7lHeRBgs9U https://youtu.be/HEL8CdV9HUQ) would suddenly stop because:
"Whelp now they're a part of this police interaction [as I intended] so I should respect their rights [which me approaching them was an attempt to interfere with]"
The current MO is:
- Cop approaches someone recording
- Proceed to apply psuedo-legal pressure because you're now "too close" to a cop (who approached you to begin).
And you actually think that a law that replaces a murky step two with "You can't film within 8ft of us" is an upgrade?
You actually think the cop informing you you can't film them will take the law they approached you to enforce as a reason to leave you alone?
-
There's something beautiful yet dangerously naive about the kind of people who have this much good faith in how police leverage the law.
Sorry but even the "good cops" are not about to use the law to expand your rights.
"Whelp now they're a part of this police interaction [as I intended] so I should respect their rights [which me approaching them was an attempt to interfere with]"
The current MO is:
- Cop approaches someone recording
- Proceed to apply psuedo-legal pressure because you're now "too close" to a cop (who approached you to begin).
And you actually think that a law that replaces a murky step two with "You can't film within 8ft of us" is an upgrade?
You actually think the cop informing you you can't film them will take the law they approached you to enforce as a reason to leave you alone?
-
There's something beautiful yet dangerously naive about the kind of people who have this much good faith in how police leverage the law.
Sorry but even the "good cops" are not about to use the law to expand your rights.
The idea that the police will follow the letter of the law during an interaction seems naive given what we've seen of police behavior.
Except when you were recording you weren't party to the police interaction. So you were breaking the law. Can you follow that logic?
This does exactly the opposite of that. Reading the text of the bill, every part of it, especially Section (B), is couched in the principle of "not interfering."
For Example: "A PERSON WHO IS THE SUBJECT OF POLICE CONTACT MAY RECORD THE ENCOUNTER IF THE PERSON IS NOT INTERFERING WITH LAWFUL POLICE ACTIONS"
So if a police officer determines that your recording of a traffic stop is "interfering" with their investigation, that it's causing you to cooperate too slowly, that your holding up the phone is limiting their ability to see into the vehicle, etc., they're well within the law to instruct and even force you to stop recording.
While a court may find that their determination of "interference" was insufficient, and that they were wrong to take your phone or arrest you for refusing to stop recording, it will be a determination made after you were arrested or fined or your phone was confiscated.
It produces a chilling effect on the ability of citizens to record the police, and gives police more law to throw at citizens to try and intimidate them into not recording their activity.
https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/laws/0376.pdf
For Example: "A PERSON WHO IS THE SUBJECT OF POLICE CONTACT MAY RECORD THE ENCOUNTER IF THE PERSON IS NOT INTERFERING WITH LAWFUL POLICE ACTIONS"
So if a police officer determines that your recording of a traffic stop is "interfering" with their investigation, that it's causing you to cooperate too slowly, that your holding up the phone is limiting their ability to see into the vehicle, etc., they're well within the law to instruct and even force you to stop recording.
While a court may find that their determination of "interference" was insufficient, and that they were wrong to take your phone or arrest you for refusing to stop recording, it will be a determination made after you were arrested or fined or your phone was confiscated.
It produces a chilling effect on the ability of citizens to record the police, and gives police more law to throw at citizens to try and intimidate them into not recording their activity.
https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/laws/0376.pdf
This was already a right, this law just gives police an ability to harass people filming them if they so desire.
[deleted]
[deleted]
This seems manifestly unconstitutional. How long will this survive a 1A challenge?
I think the idea of a line being drawn at interference is pretty well established and could see the 8-foot rule as trying to establish a useable standard. How does it apply in a traffic stop though? Not sure if there are conditions for the 8-foot rule described in the law. I could see it being allowable (or at least NOT presumptively unconstitutional) in the public setting of a sidewalk as pertaining to parties not directly involved in a matter. I am far more skeptical that it could apply to a person who is the direct subject of an interaction or a companion thereof.
Given that the Supreme Court we have today is now an extension of the Christian Taliban I'm not very hopeful we're in a time of fairness and justice.
The new court has a general thesis on things that different from the previous court. They see to be extremely pro broad, written-in-text rights. I think it would be a huge surprise if they allowed something like this.
It seems like it would be trivially unconstitutional, yes.
I believe this is most of all about stopping filming by drivers during traffic stops. It is impossible to be 8 feet away while sitting in the driver seat during a traffic stop.
I believe you are mistaken, as HB2319 [0] itself directly states:
> The occupants of a vehicle that is the subject of a police stop may record the encounter if the occupants are not interfering with lawful police actions.
--
On a side note, I encourage everyone to carefully read the actual bill.
There's a lot of intelligent people here on HN but it seems that many of those commenting can't quite comprehend plain English (not as well as I would have expected, at least).
--
[0]: https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/laws/0376.htm
> The occupants of a vehicle that is the subject of a police stop may record the encounter if the occupants are not interfering with lawful police actions.
--
On a side note, I encourage everyone to carefully read the actual bill.
There's a lot of intelligent people here on HN but it seems that many of those commenting can't quite comprehend plain English (not as well as I would have expected, at least).
--
[0]: https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/laws/0376.htm
The issue generally isn't with the bill but how the police enforce it. There are videos all over the internet of police officers telling people standing near to stop filming them and threatening to arrest them for interferring with police business. Hell, there is one video of a police office crossing the road to do so.
I stand corrected! Thank you.
See yesterday’s thread:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32030229
~Note that it's been illegal in the UK (or is it just in London?) for some time (since shortly after the 7/7 bombings iirc) - deemed surveillance for potentially untoward acts under anti-terrorism laws.~ [See correction in reply.]
Not taking a view on it really, just saying it's not unprecedented or perhaps as necessarily crazy as it might first seem.
But then, the USA is different, the policing is at least in the eyes of many more/too militarised and unlawful itself, and there's a community around 'auditing' police work to review its lawfulness etc. (Which, afaik, doesn't really happen here.) So, when you have that, it is hard not to see this as taking away that liberty. Versus here, yeah, ok, worst case a bobby asks me to delete a great photo that he happened to walk into; if it might help combat terrorism that's probably fine.
Not to say it wasn't objected to - historically there's been a principle of police (and other emergency services) not having any more rights or different treatment than any other citizen, no harsher sentence for assaulting/murdering a police officer for example. But that ships sailed a few times to varying degrees anyway.
Not taking a view on it really, just saying it's not unprecedented or perhaps as necessarily crazy as it might first seem.
But then, the USA is different, the policing is at least in the eyes of many more/too militarised and unlawful itself, and there's a community around 'auditing' police work to review its lawfulness etc. (Which, afaik, doesn't really happen here.) So, when you have that, it is hard not to see this as taking away that liberty. Versus here, yeah, ok, worst case a bobby asks me to delete a great photo that he happened to walk into; if it might help combat terrorism that's probably fine.
Not to say it wasn't objected to - historically there's been a principle of police (and other emergency services) not having any more rights or different treatment than any other citizen, no harsher sentence for assaulting/murdering a police officer for example. But that ships sailed a few times to varying degrees anyway.
Regarding the uk (including the met in london) you are incorrect.
They have no right to prevent you from filming them and no right to delete photos.
They can view photos under prevention of terrorism powers but may not take your equipment or delete photos unless they are going to charge you too.
https://www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/ph/p...
They have no right to prevent you from filming them and no right to delete photos.
They can view photos under prevention of terrorism powers but may not take your equipment or delete photos unless they are going to charge you too.
https://www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/ph/p...
There's no law against filming police in the UK. https://www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/ph/p...
I stand corrected, thank you.
Am I misremembering (or misunderstood at the time) entirely, or has this changed/scope & guidance evolved, do you know?
Am I misremembering (or misunderstood at the time) entirely, or has this changed/scope & guidance evolved, do you know?
No, I can't think of any relevant change. I also did a quick search for news stories of people's cameras being searched or siezed under S43 for photographing buildings, but didn't find any major stories.
https://www.statewatch.org/media/documents/analyses/no-105-u... ?
https://www.statewatch.org/media/documents/analyses/no-105-u... ?
In defense of the cops. If you are doing cop business and somebody approaches to within 8 feet of your business then they are involving themselves in your business.
Some will use the defense "but I was filming, surely you don't hate freedom of whatever". Which is where this particular law comes in.
Some will use the defense "but I was filming, surely you don't hate freedom of whatever". Which is where this particular law comes in.
So film at 10 feet, if you want to film? Wider field of view with no loss of fidelity on modern cameras?
Perhaps '8 feet' is meant to keep a filmer out of potential harm, and from interfering with a police officer and suspect potentially struggling.
Perhaps '8 feet' is meant to keep a filmer out of potential harm, and from interfering with a police officer and suspect potentially struggling.
No. This law has been written so as to be deliberately vague, and thus allow abuse.
There are precious few examples of people filming cops actually interfering. There are, however, a LOT of examples where video documentation of police misconduct led to departmental embarrassment, lawsuits, and even (though rarely) criminal charges.
The law exists to try to prevent THAT.
There are precious few examples of people filming cops actually interfering. There are, however, a LOT of examples where video documentation of police misconduct led to departmental embarrassment, lawsuits, and even (though rarely) criminal charges.
The law exists to try to prevent THAT.
strange times
>Perhaps '8 feet' is meant to keep a filmer out of potential harm, and from interfering with a police officer and suspect potentially struggling.
If that were the intent, there'd be no reason to focus on the act of filming. It would just say "8 feet for anyone besides police officers and those the police officers are dealing with."
If that were the intent, there'd be no reason to focus on the act of filming. It would just say "8 feet for anyone besides police officers and those the police officers are dealing with."
Maybe I am wrong, but I understand this as if you're the person being questioned, arrested, etc then you can't legally record what's happening. If you record something illegally, is it admissible?
The text of the bill identifies the case for both those who are the subject of the "activity" and those that aren't. This is targeted at those who are not the subject and those who are (or are in a vehicle with the subject) have different rules that are called out. You can see the details at https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/laws/0376.htm
[deleted]
I know there's a slippery slope or potentential for abuse here.
But in its present form, it seems downright reasonable. Doesn't activate my outrage.
But in its present form, it seems downright reasonable. Doesn't activate my outrage.
Is it so when you start recording them barking at your car window they can arrest you for recording less than 8 feet away?
Because that would be insidious.
Because that would be insidious.
In the article it explains the law excludes things where you are involved in the police action, including vehicle stops. This is for uninvolved folks that are recording.
[deleted]
> MAY RECORD THE ENCOUNTER IF THE PERSON IS NOT INTERFERING WITH LAWFUL POLICE ACTIONS
This broad inclusive language was seemingly added to protect the act of recording while being the subject of an investigation. It also makes it very clear when the officer can turn off the citizens camera. This law has potential to be abused to shroud dirty shit. Existing laws previously existed to enforce this same behaviour. This is an unnecessary expansion of power.
This broad inclusive language was seemingly added to protect the act of recording while being the subject of an investigation. It also makes it very clear when the officer can turn off the citizens camera. This law has potential to be abused to shroud dirty shit. Existing laws previously existed to enforce this same behaviour. This is an unnecessary expansion of power.
I don't see this as the same knee-jerk "the police are being shielded from having their misdeeds recorded" as other people are jumping to do.
If you look at some of the video of police trying to do their jobs and having screeching bystanders yelling at them, I am absolutely fine with this law being invoked to maintain police sanity and prevent things from escalating.
If you look at some of the video of police trying to do their jobs and having screeching bystanders yelling at them, I am absolutely fine with this law being invoked to maintain police sanity and prevent things from escalating.
In the vast majority of cases recorded in the last two years, the escalation came from the side of the police, not the bystanders. If a police officer doesn’t like being yelled and recording while beating protestors or murdering minor criminals, perhaps they need to find other employment.
As I said in another comment, you sound like you feed on turning 0.001% exceptions into the rule. Almost all police in this country are not beating protestors or murdering people. I don't want to have a system where someone's extreme (though yes, bad case) sets the way we handle everything.
Is your approach to solve for the 0.001% problem and care nothing about the rest of the 99.999% situations where the rule you put in place will have to be lived with by everyone else?
Is your approach to solve for the 0.001% problem and care nothing about the rest of the 99.999% situations where the rule you put in place will have to be lived with by everyone else?
Here's a thought experiment for you: I want you to watch the video of the Daniel Shaver shooting in Arizona. Then I want you to consider the outcome of the extreme police violence cases vs the extreme cases of bystander escalation.
The only thing that stops the police from getting away with violence is the fact that people are recording them. And even then, the police can execute an innocent and unarmed individual and get acquitted by court.
The only thing that stops the police from getting away with violence is the fact that people are recording them. And even then, the police can execute an innocent and unarmed individual and get acquitted by court.
No one's talking about stopping people's right to record. And if standing 8 feet makes a difference then we've got other problems.
I'm talking about reasonable restrictions to stop people from getting up in the police's face in everyday situations that dominate the daily work of policing, so that bystanders with less than honorable intentions don't provoke and escalate a situation.
By whatever principle you're operating under, you would assert that police have no right to put up police tape and cordon off a crime scene either?
I'm talking about reasonable restrictions to stop people from getting up in the police's face in everyday situations that dominate the daily work of policing, so that bystanders with less than honorable intentions don't provoke and escalate a situation.
By whatever principle you're operating under, you would assert that police have no right to put up police tape and cordon off a crime scene either?
> In the vast majority of cases recorded in the last two years, the escalation came from the side of the police, not the bystanders
please provide some data to back up this claim.
please provide some data to back up this claim.
"police trying to do their jobs and having screeching bystanders yelling"
oh noe, what did they suffer hearing damage or something? Compared to how many innocent people were shot?
oh noe, what did they suffer hearing damage or something? Compared to how many innocent people were shot?
I think you need to consider visiting outside of the echo chamber you live in. We do not have some epidemic of innocent people being shot. You feed on turning 0.001% exceptions into the rule.
you need to reexamine your values.
To even suggest that Noise pollution suffered by police is more important than even 1 person. getting shot is incredible.
To suggest that when 2500 people are shot annyally is simply breathtaking.
UK police kills 0 - 2 people a year, you have more people in prison than Russia and China combined, and you think you *Don't* have a problem?
To even suggest that Noise pollution suffered by police is more important than even 1 person. getting shot is incredible.
To suggest that when 2500 people are shot annyally is simply breathtaking.
UK police kills 0 - 2 people a year, you have more people in prison than Russia and China combined, and you think you *Don't* have a problem?
I'm not solving for loud noises that the police have to hear. You took my literal words, lost the point, and turned it into ready outrage.
There are legitimate reasons for the police to have bystanders stay a distance away from them while doing their job. Not having people purposely stand in the police's way and provoke conflict while filming is reasonable.
And let's not go down the hole of analyzing police shooting stats. We can do that endlessly. How many of those shootings were against armed suspects? How many were in the process of committing crimes? We can go on and on. Your numbers will drop fast.
Not saying we don't have a problem with guns in this country. But putting the outrage on having to stand reasonably far away from a police officer isn't where it's going to be solved.
There are legitimate reasons for the police to have bystanders stay a distance away from them while doing their job. Not having people purposely stand in the police's way and provoke conflict while filming is reasonable.
And let's not go down the hole of analyzing police shooting stats. We can do that endlessly. How many of those shootings were against armed suspects? How many were in the process of committing crimes? We can go on and on. Your numbers will drop fast.
Not saying we don't have a problem with guns in this country. But putting the outrage on having to stand reasonably far away from a police officer isn't where it's going to be solved.
People are allowed to screech. It's kind of an important part of the constitution.
That's fine of course. Just don't do it right in the police's faces as an attempt to interfere or borderline provoke a situation.
You can politely ask me not to do that. Legally preventing me from doing that is unconstitutional.
Your interpretation of the constitution is quite expansive. In what provision do you find it unconstitutional that laws are passed regulating the distance of someone to be kept away from interfering with police duties? Police put up tape to cordon off a crime scene. That's unconstitutional too? Examine your own sense of reasonableness.
Why do right wing politians dislike Russia when they are trying to copy it's methods and tactics?
laws like this one will encourage corruption and abuse of power, results in same problems Russia has - police can extorn local businesses and citizen without consequences" tale down political opponents, etc.
laws like this one will encourage corruption and abuse of power, results in same problems Russia has - police can extorn local businesses and citizen without consequences" tale down political opponents, etc.
Really odd to see this from a blue state? am I missing something?
You're missing that Arizona isn't blue. They've only voted for the democratic presidential nominee twice since 1952, in 1996 and 2020.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona#Political_culture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona#Political_culture
Yes, the state legislature and governor of AZ are GOP, and they were the ones that pushed for this.
AZ is nowhere close to being a Blue State. Barely went to Biden in 2020, yes, but Gov and Legislature are GOP dominated, and have been for some time. (And they have been very successful in drawing district lines to keep themselves in power).
Probably the best way to think of AZ's population is purple, but more red than blue in tint.
Probably the best way to think of AZ's population is purple, but more red than blue in tint.
> Barely went to Biden in 2020, yes, but Gov and Legislature are GOP dominated, and have been for some time.
But this is only because of Trump's lies and Fox news collusion with Trump. If they gave Biden and honest wrap and told their viewers how historic a Biden presidency would be and how Biden would fight like hell to bring the prices of kitchen table issues down then he would have won Arizona in a landslide.
But this is only because of Trump's lies and Fox news collusion with Trump. If they gave Biden and honest wrap and told their viewers how historic a Biden presidency would be and how Biden would fight like hell to bring the prices of kitchen table issues down then he would have won Arizona in a landslide.
why is a http library publishing news
"Nobody walks up to a cop when he is questioning a suspicious person or arresting somebody and stands one or two feet away. Common sense says you’re asking for trouble," Kavanagh said on Arizona PBS.
Common sense tells me Kavanagh is a manipulative bullshitter. I am so tired of this governmental and corporate double-speak.
This should not require any new laws. If you are interfering with official police business, it's already illegal. If you are not interfering, then recording them should not be a problem.
The response itself is a classic manipulation technique. You add more words to a statement without changing its meaning, but confusing people about its purpose.
Common sense tells me Kavanagh is a manipulative bullshitter. I am so tired of this governmental and corporate double-speak.
This should not require any new laws. If you are interfering with official police business, it's already illegal. If you are not interfering, then recording them should not be a problem.
The response itself is a classic manipulation technique. You add more words to a statement without changing its meaning, but confusing people about its purpose.
What is going to happen, of course, is that you start filming from 50 feet away, and then one of the officers will walk over to you, and tell you to stop filming. Which happens all the time already, but thanks to this, will turn it from a request, into a legal requirement.
The purpose of this law is to protect the police state.
The purpose of this law is to protect the police state.
You didn’t read the law but seem pretty sure of your take.
This was discussed prior - a police officer standing next to you isn’t included in the defined police activity.
This was discussed prior - a police officer standing next to you isn’t included in the defined police activity.
The point is that Laws have interpretations. This law is unnecessary and not required. Police already can arrest you for interfering. This law is an attempt to stop citizens from recording the police.
Before this law: I as a citizen can record a police activity reasonably from anywhere. Even up close as long as I am not interfering for which I can already get arrested
After this law: I as a citizen am never sure if it is a good idea to record because the new law can have many interpretations. Do I want to risk filming and getting approached by a Bad Cop on a Power trip who will tell me it is illegal to record ?
Before this law: I as a citizen can record a police activity reasonably from anywhere. Even up close as long as I am not interfering for which I can already get arrested
After this law: I as a citizen am never sure if it is a good idea to record because the new law can have many interpretations. Do I want to risk filming and getting approached by a Bad Cop on a Power trip who will tell me it is illegal to record ?
> Do I want to risk filming and getting approached by a Bad Cop on a Power trip who will tell me it is illegal to record ?
That was already the case. If you assume bad intent, this law changes nothing. If you assume good intent, this law is codifying reasonable behavior.
That was already the case. If you assume bad intent, this law changes nothing. If you assume good intent, this law is codifying reasonable behavior.
What if I'm filming from 8 feet away with good intent and a cop who is doing naughty things walks towards me so they have a legal basis to keep me from filming? And to confiscate what I've already filmed?
I disagree. Now the Bad Cops have a reason to try and intimidate you further. It is a pointless Law in my opinion but we can agree to disagree.
Then this law is utterly useless, because police could always make someone standing over their shoulder move away. Why did the legislature pass it?
Why did one of the officers at the George Floyd killing walk over to the camera man, and tell him to stop filming? If he has this law behind him, he wouldn't have covered for the murder by also interpreting it in a self-serving manner?
If you're in that situation, what exactly do you think you're going to win by getting into a legal debate with a cop?
The real yikes here is the presumption that the police will behave legally, honorably, and with the public's interests in mind. They don't. It's not in their culture to do it, it's not in our culture to enforce that they do.
Why did one of the officers at the George Floyd killing walk over to the camera man, and tell him to stop filming? If he has this law behind him, he wouldn't have covered for the murder by also interpreting it in a self-serving manner?
If you're in that situation, what exactly do you think you're going to win by getting into a legal debate with a cop?
The real yikes here is the presumption that the police will behave legally, honorably, and with the public's interests in mind. They don't. It's not in their culture to do it, it's not in our culture to enforce that they do.
Maybe, maybe not, and that is the problem. There is a phrase "the process is the punishment". So they arrest you, and you drag you through the system, you hire a lawyer, lose days at work, etc... You're out several thousand dollars, exhausted, and they eventually just drop the charges without another word, maybe the officer gets a little extra overtime even.
A police officer "enforcing the law" is covered as law enforcement activity. That seems open to (mis)interpretation.
Although if you then get arrested, you'd fall under the exception for persons subject to police contact. So it all works out in the end!
Although if you then get arrested, you'd fall under the exception for persons subject to police contact. So it all works out in the end!
Read the law. Police activity is defined as: questioning a suspect, conducting a search or arrest, or detaining an emotionally unstable person.
If you record and they start questioning you, you are exempt from 8 ft.
If they try to arrest you, you are exempt from 8 ft.
If they claim you are emotionally unstable, you are exempt from 8 ft.
If you are just a bystander, you need to stay 8 ft away from the police activity.
If you record and they start questioning you, you are exempt from 8 ft.
If they try to arrest you, you are exempt from 8 ft.
If they claim you are emotionally unstable, you are exempt from 8 ft.
If you are just a bystander, you need to stay 8 ft away from the police activity.
So, when a cop walks up to you, and tells you to stop filming, and you tell him that you've read the law, and he tells you that he knows the law, and that you need to stop filming, or he will arrest you, who do you think will come out the winner of this curbside legal debate?
What do you think will happen to you?
What do you think will happen to the officer when we discover that his legal interpretation is incorrect?
The police don't actually need to know the law they are enforcing. And it's no sweat off their backs when they are wrong about the details.
What do you think will happen to you?
What do you think will happen to the officer when we discover that his legal interpretation is incorrect?
The police don't actually need to know the law they are enforcing. And it's no sweat off their backs when they are wrong about the details.
> Read the law.
I did, or at least tried to. That's why I put "enforcing the law" in quotes.
Maybe I read the wrong law? In https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/laws/0376.pdf, the definition of "law enforcement activity" includes this, from section E(2):
> CONDUCTING AN ARREST, ISSUING A SUMMONS OR ENFORCING THE LAW
My point is that "enforcing the law" seems like a very broad umbrella. Prior to this law being written, I think I'd be on OK ground if I was filming an arrest from 10 feet away and an unrelated police officer came up to me and told me to stop.
Now, it's less clear to me. The officer who comes up and tells me to stop clearly thinks he is enforcing the law. Am I now breaking the law if I don't stop recording?
I did, or at least tried to. That's why I put "enforcing the law" in quotes.
Maybe I read the wrong law? In https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/laws/0376.pdf, the definition of "law enforcement activity" includes this, from section E(2):
> CONDUCTING AN ARREST, ISSUING A SUMMONS OR ENFORCING THE LAW
My point is that "enforcing the law" seems like a very broad umbrella. Prior to this law being written, I think I'd be on OK ground if I was filming an arrest from 10 feet away and an unrelated police officer came up to me and told me to stop.
Now, it's less clear to me. The officer who comes up and tells me to stop clearly thinks he is enforcing the law. Am I now breaking the law if I don't stop recording?
- Police begin questioning a suspect.
- You begin recording from 8 ft away.
- Police continue questioning the suspect, but move 1 ft towards you.
- You're now breaking the law.
- You begin recording from 8 ft away.
- Police continue questioning the suspect, but move 1 ft towards you.
- You're now breaking the law.
>This was discussed prior - a police officer standing next to you isn’t included in the defined police activity.
Unless they are enforcing the law. Which they will be, because they will be enforcing this law.
Unless they are enforcing the law. Which they will be, because they will be enforcing this law.
If they are enforcing a law against you, the 8 feet doesn’t apply., you are free to record.
Yikes. Like 90% of the comments on this throw out wild scenarios that clearly don’t apply if you read the law which is less than one page.
Yikes. Like 90% of the comments on this throw out wild scenarios that clearly don’t apply if you read the law which is less than one page.
Because some of us live in the world of reality, were cops only tangentially know the laws, unfairly enforce the laws, and this law will give the police the perception that any recording with in 8 feet of them is illegal and will be enforced as such even if not technically true
The law will be abused by the cops on the ground, this is 100% a sure thing going to happen, it will be used to ruin someone life. I mean that legitimately because unlike popular opinion of internet commenters on the law, a simple arrest can have life alter consequences including job loss, you could end able on any number of mug shot sites that could impact your ability to be hired get rental property, all kinds of things.
Let alone if you are convicted under this law, or if they try to arrest you can you reflexively pull your arm away... bam now your a felon resisting arrest...
So keep "reading the one page law" and if you think it is no issue I would encourage you to go record on some police at 8.1 feet way, do that enough I am sure you will have a different opinion in just a few interactions
The law will be abused by the cops on the ground, this is 100% a sure thing going to happen, it will be used to ruin someone life. I mean that legitimately because unlike popular opinion of internet commenters on the law, a simple arrest can have life alter consequences including job loss, you could end able on any number of mug shot sites that could impact your ability to be hired get rental property, all kinds of things.
Let alone if you are convicted under this law, or if they try to arrest you can you reflexively pull your arm away... bam now your a felon resisting arrest...
So keep "reading the one page law" and if you think it is no issue I would encourage you to go record on some police at 8.1 feet way, do that enough I am sure you will have a different opinion in just a few interactions
How can this law ever be enforced if an attempt to enforce it automatically makes any offender an exception to the law?
That’s not how it works.
You could illegally film someone else’s arrest closer than 8ft.
When the cops arrests you (unlikely it’s a misdemeanor) you’re free to film your own interaction.
You could illegally film someone else’s arrest closer than 8ft.
When the cops arrests you (unlikely it’s a misdemeanor) you’re free to film your own interaction.
>Yikes. Like 90% of the comments on this throw out wild scenarios that clearly don’t apply if you read the law which is less than one page.
Your certainty is completely unwarranted.
Here is a lawyer from Arizona talking about it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Id3RJ3tCuM
It's a short bill, but it has complex implications, especially considering that it's somewhat self-referential (law about law enforcement). It's going to be a mess in practice.
Your certainty is completely unwarranted.
Here is a lawyer from Arizona talking about it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Id3RJ3tCuM
It's a short bill, but it has complex implications, especially considering that it's somewhat self-referential (law about law enforcement). It's going to be a mess in practice.
"Nobody walks up to a cop when he is questioning a suspicious person or arresting somebody and stands one or two feet away. Common sense says you’re asking for trouble," Kavanagh said on Arizona PBS.
Yeah, people don't because they're afraid of the police and don't want to get involved.
One "solution" to that is to, as Kavanagh seems to favor, make people even more afraid... the opposite approach is to protect them and make them less afraid.
Since there's nothing inherently wrong with filming police, the government should do the latter. In fact, the government should be encouraging the filming of police because police time and again have abused their power and betrayed the people's trust and their own duty.
Instead, this bassackwards law makes people more afraid.
Yeah, people don't because they're afraid of the police and don't want to get involved.
One "solution" to that is to, as Kavanagh seems to favor, make people even more afraid... the opposite approach is to protect them and make them less afraid.
Since there's nothing inherently wrong with filming police, the government should do the latter. In fact, the government should be encouraging the filming of police because police time and again have abused their power and betrayed the people's trust and their own duty.
Instead, this bassackwards law makes people more afraid.
[deleted]
Considering it’s not unusual for cops to be assaulted by family members or friends of the person they are questioning or arresting, I don’t agree that standing 1 ft away from a cop who is trying to conduct police work is reasonable in terms of security.
> Considering it’s not unusual for cops to be assaulted by family members or friends
That’s already illegal.
> I don’t agree
You don’t disagree either (yet), because that statement doesn’t contradict the parent comment.
The parent comment is highlighting the poisonous way Kavanagh engages in politics discourse. You’re demonstrating it.
That’s already illegal.
> I don’t agree
You don’t disagree either (yet), because that statement doesn’t contradict the parent comment.
The parent comment is highlighting the poisonous way Kavanagh engages in politics discourse. You’re demonstrating it.
Sure attacking a cop is already illegal. But you’re suggesting a cop, in the process of arresting someone, should allow someone to stand 1ft away from them as long as the purpose is to record them?
Yes, cops already have leeway to maintain a safe distance between themselves and spectators, but as others have said, this just puts an exact number on a fuzzy limit the courts have already supported.
Yes, cops already have leeway to maintain a safe distance between themselves and spectators, but as others have said, this just puts an exact number on a fuzzy limit the courts have already supported.
Considering that would already be illegal, as the comment you're replying to states, I don't agree that has any relevance to this new law.
[deleted]
Sounds like a reasonable enough statement to me. If nobody is getting up close to cops while they're involved with a suspect then it won't be an issue. But we all know there a bunch of people out there who lack the sense to not keep a reasonable distance and this law will cover those instances.
I looked up the text of the (original) bill:
Given its text, I do not find the original statement reasonable at all. Simply recording police from 7 feet and not immediately stopping when a cop tells you to is a misdemeanor. This is crazy and has little to do with protecting reasonable police activity.
6 A. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON TO KNOWINGLY MAKE A VIDEO RECORDING
7 OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY, INCLUDING THE HANDLING OF AN EMOTIONALLY
8 DISTURBED PERSON, IF THE PERSON MAKING THE VIDEO RECORDING DOES NOT HAVE
9 THE PERMISSION OF A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER AND IS WITHIN FIFTEEN FEET OF
10 WHERE THE LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY IS OCCURRING. IF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT
11 ACTIVITY IS OCCURRING IN AN ENCLOSED STRUCTURE THAT IS ON PRIVATE
12 PROPERTY, A PERSON WHO IS AUTHORIZED TO BE ON THE PRIVATE PROPERTY MAY
13 MAKE A VIDEO RECORDING OF THE ACTIVITY FROM AN ADJACENT ROOM OR AREA THAT
14 IS LESS THAN FIFTEEN FEET AWAY FROM WHERE THE ACTIVITY IS OCCURRING,
15 UNLESS A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER DETERMINES THAT THE PERSON IS INTERFERING
16 IN THE LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY OR THAT IT IS NOT SAFE TO BE IN THE AREA
17 AND ORDERS THE PERSON TO STOP RECORDING OR TO LEAVE THE AREA.
18 B. THIS SECTION DOES NOT ESTABLISH A RIGHT OR AUTHORIZE ANY PERSON
19 TO MAKE A VIDEO RECORDING OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY.
20 C. A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS A PETTY OFFENSE, EXCEPT THAT IF
21 THE PERSON FAILS TO COMPLY WITH A VERBAL WARNING OF A VIOLATION OF THIS
22 SECTION OR HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN CONVICTED OF A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION,
23 IT IS A CLASS 3 MISDEMEANOR.
Given its text, I do not find the original statement reasonable at all. Simply recording police from 7 feet and not immediately stopping when a cop tells you to is a misdemeanor. This is crazy and has little to do with protecting reasonable police activity.
That's an early version of the bill. The final version [^1]:
A. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON TO KNOWINGLY MAKE A VIDEO RECORDING OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY IF THE PERSON MAKING THE VIDEO RECORDING IS WITHIN EIGHT FEET OF WHERE THE PERSON KNOWS OR REASONABLY SHOULD KNOW THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY IS OCCURRING, EITHER RECEIVES OR HAS PREVIOUSLY RECEIVED A VERBAL WARNING FROM A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER THAT THE PERSON IS PROHIBITED FROM MAKING A VIDEO RECORDING OF A LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY WITHIN EIGHT FEET OF THE ACTIVITY AND CONTINUES TO MAKE A VIDEO RECORDING OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY WITHIN EIGHT FEET OF THE ACTIVITY. IF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY IS OCCURRING IN AN ENCLOSED STRUCTURE THAT IS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY, A PERSON WHO IS AUTHORIZED TO BE ON THE PRIVATE PROPERTY MAY MAKE A VIDEO RECORDING OF THE ACTIVITY FROM AN ADJACENT ROOM OR AREA THAT IS LESS THAN EIGHT FEET AWAY FROM WHERE THE ACTIVITY IS OCCURRING, UNLESS A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER DETERMINES THAT THE PERSON IS INTERFERING IN THE LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY OR THAT IT IS NOT SAFE TO BE IN THE AREA AND ORDERS THE PERSON TO LEAVE THE AREA.
B. NOTWITHSTANDING SUBSECTION A OF THIS SECTION, A PERSON WHO IS THE SUBJECT OF POLICE CONTACT MAY RECORD THE ENCOUNTER IF THE PERSON IS NOT INTERFERING WITH LAWFUL POLICE ACTIONS, INCLUDING SEARCHING, HANDCUFFING OR ADMINISTERING A FIELD SOBRIETY TEST. THE OCCUPANTS OF A VEHICLE THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF A POLICE STOP MAY RECORD THE ENCOUNTER IF THE OCCUPANTS ARE NOT INTERFERING WITH LAWFUL POLICE ACTIONS.
C. THIS SECTION DOES NOT ESTABLISH A RIGHT OR AUTHORIZE ANY PERSON TO MAKE A VIDEO RECORDING OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY.
D. A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS A CLASS 3 MISDEMEANOR.
E. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, "LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY" MEANS ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
1. QUESTIONING A SUSPICIOUS PERSON.
2. CONDUCTING AN ARREST, ISSUING A SUMMONS OR ENFORCING THE LAW.
3. HANDLING AN EMOTIONALLY DISTURBED OR DISORDERLY PERSON WHO IS EXHIBITING ABNORMAL BEHAVIOR.
This law creates a situation where police can just keep walking toward someone filming, demanding that they stop. This is absolutely a tactic that will immediately be used by police to interfere with filming and attempt to prevent video evidence from being used against them.
That reminds me of cops playing copyright music so that videos would get auto-DMCA off YouTube.
I doubt that one would fly. If you have the video of them doing that then presumably a jury of your peers or any sane DA would throw out that case. And if you don’t, then you weren’t recording them right?
I doubt that one would fly. If you have the video of them doing that then presumably a jury of your peers or any sane DA would throw out that case. And if you don’t, then you weren’t recording them right?
Charges can fuck up your life even if you are eventually found not guilty.
The rest of the comment below the quote explains the manipulation: Kavanagh is implying that law enforcement lacks the tools to deal with that kind of interference, when the reality is that they have ample preexisting authority to arrest anyone who actually does interfere with them.
This law attempts to turn an innocent and passive civic action into a kind of interference, which is absurd on face value. If a person is actually interfering with the cops and just so happens to be recording while they do it, the law already allows the cops to arrest them.
This law attempts to turn an innocent and passive civic action into a kind of interference, which is absurd on face value. If a person is actually interfering with the cops and just so happens to be recording while they do it, the law already allows the cops to arrest them.
Innocent and passive if you aren't basically just trying to get internet points for being a hero, which some people definitely are. Anecdotally, I've seen someone walk past an arrest in which the causal factor had already been eliminated, then started filming too closely and attempting to berate officers about how to handle the person. She was basically an opposite Karen, definitely getting in the way, but I'd wager that most cops aren't in the business of wanting to make secondary pointless arrests
If they feel like they were interfered with, then they could have arrested that person for interference. The law already explicitly admits that case.
The presence of a recording device is, at best, purely immaterial. Criminalizing the act of recording has no bearing on the thing that they’re claiming needs to be criminalized, and in fact already is.
The presence of a recording device is, at best, purely immaterial. Criminalizing the act of recording has no bearing on the thing that they’re claiming needs to be criminalized, and in fact already is.
I guess I have a more charitable view of cops' intentions. Police don't want to make more arrests than necessary, so I can see how there would be argument to me made to discourage people from testing that.
You are missing the point. A law like this gives Bad Cops the power to basically stop anyone from recording. All they have to do is to walk towards that person and reduce the distance. Good cops will ignore but the Shitty ones that are on a Powertrip will absolutely abuse this. THe point is that there already are laws related to interfering with Police business and this was not needed. This is nothing but an attempt at violating a Citizen's right. Btw, there is nothing illegal about being a hero/idiot to get internet points. As much as some people are idiots, their rights should not be infringed upon if they are not interfering with Police business directly. This law makes it a lot harder to even risk recording at all because you never know if you are safe to do so.
Ya I get it, but by acting against hypothetically bad intentions pre-emptively, it creates a terrible loop that we probably shouldn't embrace. I believe there are bad cops, but I don't presume cops are bad and have no reason to. Maybe some people do, maybe a lot of people do, but not me.
We also don't want to make many other laws with this line of reasoning. That's how we lose rights
We also don't want to make many other laws with this line of reasoning. That's how we lose rights
There is an explicit exemption for people filming from 8+ feet away.
The current interference law requires a witness to physically interfere.
The current interference law requires a witness to physically interfere.
I’m sorry, but what would “non-physical interference” even mean in this context? Should a police officer be allowed to arrest me for interference because my tone is insufficiently deferential, hurting their feelings and thereby impairing their abilities?
Even physical interference is an extremely broad standard, encompassing everything from “resisting” to simply failing to move out of the way fast enough for their tastes.
Absent a specific example of “non-physical interference” actually interfering with a police activity, the entire category seems pretextual and ripe for abuse.
Even physical interference is an extremely broad standard, encompassing everything from “resisting” to simply failing to move out of the way fast enough for their tastes.
Absent a specific example of “non-physical interference” actually interfering with a police activity, the entire category seems pretextual and ripe for abuse.
"If nobody is getting up close to cops"
Someone is recording a Cop 20 feet away. THe cop notices them, doesn't like it and starts walking towards that person thereby reducing the distance and once they hit less than 8 feet, boom it is illegal even though the person did not move. This is what will happen when someone is recording a Cop and the Cop is pissed at them. Now what ?
Someone is recording a Cop 20 feet away. THe cop notices them, doesn't like it and starts walking towards that person thereby reducing the distance and once they hit less than 8 feet, boom it is illegal even though the person did not move. This is what will happen when someone is recording a Cop and the Cop is pissed at them. Now what ?
"IF THE PERSON MAKING THE VIDEO RECORDING IS WITHIN EIGHT FEET OF WHERE THE PERSON KNOWS OR REASONABLY SHOULD KNOW THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY IS OCCURRING"
A cop walking toward them from 20ft away won't shift the locus of the law enforcement activity (unless he's dragging the prisoner, I suppose) and this should be ruled out as infringement - it would be a ridiculous stretch to say "the mere presence of a cop means law enforcement activity is occurring".
A cop walking toward them from 20ft away won't shift the locus of the law enforcement activity (unless he's dragging the prisoner, I suppose) and this should be ruled out as infringement - it would be a ridiculous stretch to say "the mere presence of a cop means law enforcement activity is occurring".
Law enforcement activity is so vague it can be wherever the cop says it is.
It seems pretty reasonable that a court will decide that "a law enforcement activity" isn't a single point in space but an area that encompasses the situation. From there it's a pretty reasonable expectation that all involved officers are included in that area.
Unless you think it really is just a singular point in which case any large situation makes the distance restriction meaningless...
Unless you think it really is just a singular point in which case any large situation makes the distance restriction meaningless...
> "a law enforcement activity" isn't a single point in space but an area that encompasses the situation
Obviously it's an area but ...
> it's a pretty reasonable expectation that all involved officers are included in that area
That doesn't necessarily follow - 2 cops arresting someone whilst 10 are on, say, crowd or traffic control shouldn't include those 10 cops in the LEA because they're not part of the "activity", per se, but supporting actors, no? Same goes for one that wanders away from the arrest - they're no longer an active participant and can't be included in the "activity", surely?
(Now, I agree, the courts might well say "wherever cops are is a LEA" but I don't think they'd get away with it without shenanigans like SCOTUS.)
Obviously it's an area but ...
> it's a pretty reasonable expectation that all involved officers are included in that area
That doesn't necessarily follow - 2 cops arresting someone whilst 10 are on, say, crowd or traffic control shouldn't include those 10 cops in the LEA because they're not part of the "activity", per se, but supporting actors, no? Same goes for one that wanders away from the arrest - they're no longer an active participant and can't be included in the "activity", surely?
(Now, I agree, the courts might well say "wherever cops are is a LEA" but I don't think they'd get away with it without shenanigans like SCOTUS.)
It looks like this contact may now fall under "A PERSON WHO IS THE SUBJECT OF POLICE CONTACT MAY RECORD THE ENCOUNTER" clause, which still allows recording, as they are not longer a bystander, but I'm not a lawyer.
It's already illigal to interfere in police business. You can do this through many mean, not just being within 8ft filming. By lowering the bar for interference the government can now argue that anyone in 8ft for any reason cannot film. It's also in violation of the 1st amendment, as many of these pro-policing laws tend to be.
And given that the police can use laws that don't exist as probable cause which leads to an arrest and conviction [0], I don't think it's unrealistic to expect cops to say "well I thought [the guy filming me from 30 ft away] was too close" to justify an arrest.
Sure, you might be found innocent (on the filming charge), but that's not the point - the cops wanted to stop you from filming, and they won. They might have even seized your phone and deleted the footage, and you have no recourse thanks to qualified immunity [1]. Just you getting thrown in jail and missing work could mean getting fired, being unable to make rent, getting evicted, etc. It creates a chilling effect, which is exactly what they want.
> It's also in violation of the 1st amendment, as many of these pro-policing laws tend to be.
It is, but sadly, SCOTUS will likely find some insane argument to uphold it.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heien_v._North_Carolina
[1]: https://eji.org/issues/qualified-immunity/
Sure, you might be found innocent (on the filming charge), but that's not the point - the cops wanted to stop you from filming, and they won. They might have even seized your phone and deleted the footage, and you have no recourse thanks to qualified immunity [1]. Just you getting thrown in jail and missing work could mean getting fired, being unable to make rent, getting evicted, etc. It creates a chilling effect, which is exactly what they want.
> It's also in violation of the 1st amendment, as many of these pro-policing laws tend to be.
It is, but sadly, SCOTUS will likely find some insane argument to uphold it.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heien_v._North_Carolina
[1]: https://eji.org/issues/qualified-immunity/
Which one is the problem? People not keeping a reasonable distance or... cops on a powertrip that now have another tool to fork with your rights?
Remember that this is Arizona, a known shithole state. Whatever interpretation of this law that you're using to paint it in a softer light, understand that it's not coming from a place of "let's help police protect people".
The Arizona PD are courteous and I've never had problems with them unlike the LAPD who tortured and nearly killed me 12 years ago. Marijuana is legal in AZ, and the wildlife is protected, even plants. It's illegal to cut down cactuses. Firearms are legal which means you have the freedom to protect yourself from violent assailants. Free health care (medicaid) is really good there, such that you can see all the specialists you might need. Why do you call it a shithole state?
Having lived in 5 states including NY and CA, I'd call those two shitholes before I called AZ a shithole.
Having lived in 5 states including NY and CA, I'd call those two shitholes before I called AZ a shithole.
I don't know if I'd call Arizona a shit hole (I've never been), but it did have the worst racial profiling under Sheriff Arpaio.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio
https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/us-department-justice-fi...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio
https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/us-department-justice-fi...
In CA, it was Sheriff Bacca.
Literally part of a Neo-Nazi gang: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynwood_Vikings
Got nailed after his officers tried to kill an FBI agent who was investigating prison abuse.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/former-la-county-sherif...
With AZ, there was a big issue with prison abuse ie. "Tent Prison" [1]
All I can speak to is my experiences, all of this is really shitty.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maricopa_County_Sheriff%27s_Of...
Literally part of a Neo-Nazi gang: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynwood_Vikings
Got nailed after his officers tried to kill an FBI agent who was investigating prison abuse.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/former-la-county-sherif...
With AZ, there was a big issue with prison abuse ie. "Tent Prison" [1]
All I can speak to is my experiences, all of this is really shitty.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maricopa_County_Sheriff%27s_Of...
If you can't see why AZ is a shithole you might be the problem.
There's no such thing as "The Arizona PD"
I don't see a law enforcement carve-out. By my reading a fellow cop with a body camera getting next to another cop enforcing the law would result in their violation of this law. Wonder if you can citizen's arrest a police officer for violating this law.
Except laws aren't interpreted and enforced with autistic rigidity.
The law should be applied equally. In fact the equal protections clause of the 14th amendment could invalidate prosecution of laws not applied uniformly.
Everyone's so anti-police until we need them to defend against white supremacists. And most of these libertarian "1st amendment audit" and "copblock" types are covert white supremacists.
I 100% support this law. Police should not live in fear of being recorded out of context when they're doing their duty to protect the citizenry.
I 100% support this law. Police should not live in fear of being recorded out of context when they're doing their duty to protect the citizenry.
The police are the white supremacists. The 2006 FBI report has some interesting documentation on the white supremacist police infiltration efforts.
https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house....
https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house....
> police should not live in fear of being recorded out of context
Then why should I? If being recorded is such a terrible fate, let's make it illegal to record anyone, right? No? thought so.
Then why should I? If being recorded is such a terrible fate, let's make it illegal to record anyone, right? No? thought so.
What about police who abuse their power? What about police who lie, victimize, murder, and torture?
Shouldn't citizens be allowed and even encouraged to shine a bright light on their abuses?
Shouldn't citizens be allowed and even encouraged to shine a bright light on their abuses?
So if LEO walks to your window for a traffic stop you can’t film it with your cell phone from the dash?
No, that's excepted, since you are the subject of his stop, unless he has legitimate reason that your recording is interfering with his work, and he tells you to stop.
I think the new concept here is that he doesn't NEED a reason for within 8 feet for bystanders. Just the proximity is justifiable grounds for him to tell bystanders they have to stop or back up beyond 8 ft.
https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/laws/0376.htm
I think the new concept here is that he doesn't NEED a reason for within 8 feet for bystanders. Just the proximity is justifiable grounds for him to tell bystanders they have to stop or back up beyond 8 ft.
https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/laws/0376.htm
My understanding is you can film as party involved in the interaction. This is about onlookers (who often insert themselves into the situation making it more dangerous for everyone).
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32030229
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32025858