17 ms·

Arizona moves to ban recording video of police

Eddy_Viscosity2 5y ago
The solution to rampant police misconduct and law-breaking? Just make it illegal to gather evidence of rampant police misconduct and law-breaking. Problem solved hand wiping motions
- jjcon 5y ago
  Possible Devils advocate - you can easily gather evidence while not being within 8 feet of an officer. This could be more to do with interfering with police activities than preventing evidence collection. Potentially unconstitutional either way but i imagine there are legit concerns with people/press being that close to officers.
  - vpilcx 5y ago
    I don't think you understand how the GOP operates now. 8ft now, next year, they increase it. It's like what they do with abortions.
  - mwt 5y ago
    The text of the bill is focused on recording, not physical interference (for which there appears to be existing laws) https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/summary/H.HB2319_022322_HOUSEENGROSSED.pdf https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/summary/H.HB2319_0223...
  - Eddy_Viscosity2 5y ago
    Once the police have the ability to arrest people for videoing them, they will use it whenever they please. Then argue after the arrest whether or not it was '8 feet' or not. The person video-taping still gets put into custody and has to deal with all of the consequences of that, including a not so gentle arrest. Then, best case, if they can prove it was outside 8 feet, they might get the charges dropped, but they won't be able to sue or at least it be very unlikely to succeed. The functional result (if this bill passes the senate) is that the police in arizona can, and will, arrest anybody they want to who video tapes them. Following that will be similar bills in other states. Being arrested is a big deal and you could be in jail for some time, even if the charges are dropped. Whereas unlawful arrest could result in consequences for officers, this law would give that arrest at least a pretext of being reasonable, all they have to say is they misjudged the distance and then are off the hook - "honest mistake".
    - Kye 5y ago
      Yep. They already yell "stop resisting!" at people who are clearly not resisting to prime the memories of witnesses. "You're too close!" fits right into that dynamic.
    - nonrandomstring 5y ago
      > Once the police have the ability to arrest people for videoing them, they will use it whenever they please. Maybe not quite. An interesting dilemma arises. If our law abiding, peace officers arrest someone for filming - then that media becomes the evidence in an arrest. So they may safely arrest someone so long as they (the police) are doing nothing wrong while the cameraman is is "illegally" filming them. But then why would anyone be filming police who are doing nothing wrong? As soon as the police are engaged in acts of violence, and people start filming them, it would not be in their interests to arrest anyone, unless they were prepared to follow through, destroy evidence, intimidate detainees into silence or commit perjury. So this idea puts the police into an interesting bind, and suggests it would only have consequences that lead quickly to tyrannical outcomes.
      - naijaboiler 5y ago
        > As soon as the police are engaged in acts of violence, and people start filming them, it would not be in their interests to arrest anyone, unless they were prepared to follow through, destroy evidence, intimidate detainees into silence or commit perjury. This is such a naive take from someone who had never had to face police officers blatantly violating your rights and physical well-being.
        nonrandomstring 5y ago
        > This is such a naive take from someone who had never had to face police officers blatantly violating your rights and physical well-being. What on earth do you think you know about that?
      - DoctorOW 5y ago
        > As soon as the police are engaged in acts of violence, and people start filming them, it would not be in their interests to arrest anyone, unless they were prepared to follow through, destroy evidence, intimidate detainees into silence or commit perjury. We already see this happening. IIRC Police unions are the only people allowed to review the evidence for the first 24 hours and are free from consequence were it to get "lost".
  - hsfhdfhsdfhs 5y ago
    The problem is if your rights are being violated by an officer, that officer is probably within eight feet of you. It's bullshit that you're not permitted to record your rights being violated.
    - everfree 5y ago
      According to the article, the ban only applies when the officer is interacting with someone other than yourself.
      - alphabettsy 5y ago
        Then the law isn’t necessary because officers already have lawful authority to enforce a “reasonable” safety boundary.
      - Brian_K_White 5y ago
        The officer that just took your phone from you? Or handcuffed you? That officer? Or one of the other officers standing around in any of the other 359 degrees where your phone isn't pointing? There is just no way to make any of their excuses actually hold water.
  - Brian_K_White 5y ago
    "you can easily gather evidence while not being within 8 feet" Only a bystander can. The person who needs it the most, can't. Meanwhile, the police's own body cam is on while they are within 8 feet of you. Assuming they didn't turn it off, assuming you get access to it later, in a timely manner, unedited... There is an argument about interference and safety, but no valid argument in the end, since there is no way to allow the limitation without creating a tool for abuse that's worse. Better to let actual cases of interference be tried as such. Make the officer have to invoke a process after the fact, and have to defend their claim of criminal or endagering interference in court.
    - worik 5y ago
      Police body cam. That would be good. In fact, if my impression of the news is correct, police body cams do more to protect the police from unjustified charges of abuse than they do to protect the victims of police abuse. Perhaps that is an effect of police unions? Perhaps it is simply a good thing and we should have more of them? People independent of the police filming it seems like a good idea to me. For all concerned.
      - Brian_K_White 5y ago
        If only failing to have the cam present or running were considered a super bad crime instigating a huge investigation with a bias towards guilt and you have to prove innocense. Instead, at least in some places, cops get away with turning their cams off or otherwise suffering mysterious glitches and data loss. There used to be standards for certain things where the appearance of imporopriety was bad enough all by itself, exactly because some things can't really be proven, like how you can't prove a negative. That seems to be pretty much gone now. Judges don't recuse themselves from cases where they have a conflict of interest, and the other judges just let them, etc. So, in the sweet naive child view of the world, a cop merely no being able to produce their body cam footage for some incident, no matter what they say or what the story is should be almost automatic grounds for dismissal of the whole case and maybe the cop too, or at least a huge stink and huge investigation. But I don't think we live in that world we tell gradeschool kids we live in.
      - 5y ago
  - duskwuff 5y ago
    > Possible Devils advocate - you can easily gather evidence while not being within 8 feet of an officer. Until the officer deliberately approaches you to prevent you from recording?
    - jjcon 5y ago
      The law specifically states you can film if the officer is interacting with you
      - wave_function 5y ago
        How does this even work? Police officer walks to within 7 feet of you: you’re not allowed to film. They tell you to stop filming and then suddenly you’re allowed to because they’re interacting with you?
      - lovich 5y ago
        So he walks up to you silently and then arrests you for having recorded him within 8 feet while he had not interacted with you. The cops do not follow the law in good faith ever and this gives them another trivially abused tool, like when they would stop people because they "smelled" pot that never existed
  - TeaDrunk 5y ago
    If a cop is actively walking towards you, do you have to stop recording once they reach 8 feet? How can you gather evidence if there are a dozen cops surrounding the abuse, with them approaching anyone who is outside 8 feet to force them further and further away?
  - nkrisc 5y ago
    They can arrest you for recording at any distance, and then drop the charges later and likely just get away with it. It won’t matter either way because they already achieved their goal: stop you from recording.
    - worik 5y ago
      That is a very common tactic in my experience. Arrest willy nilly, on court day withdraw the charges. You can sue for "wrongful arrest". That would be a tactically silly idea for almost everybody who has these sorts of encounters
      - nkrisc 5y ago
        Even if you sued successfully for that it wouldn’t matter. Their goal was to stop your recording whatever worse thing they were presumably doing which can never be undone.
  - jkaplowitz 5y ago
    Journalist: records from 9 feet away Police: Stop recording me. Journalist: I'm more than 8 feet away, I have the right to record. Police: You're 7 feet away. Last warning. Journalist: is still 9 feet away so keeps recording Police: Arrests journalist, confiscates recording District attorney: Reviews footage, sees that the journalist was more than 8 feet away, drops charges Journalist: sues for wrongful arrest Court: Being able to count distance accurately is not a job requirement for a police officer. Wrongful arrest claim denied Journalist: files claim for return of recording Police department: We are unable to find this recording. (Or, alternatively, they wipe the media before returning it.)
  - yalogin 5y ago
    You know what’s going to happen. The cop sees the person recording and walks towards him asking if they are recording and gets inside 8 ft and arrests them. Easy! Or another cop dashes the person recording just to stop and arrest the recording
- quantified 5y ago
  I bet it goes through because 8 feet is close enough to get to a cop without getting bit, and it’s up to the cop saying it’s dangerous which they’ll never do unless it really is.
- kingcharles 5y ago
  LOL. What would you do if you had evidence of police misconduct? Take it to the police? Take it to the prosecutor? Take it to a judge? Unless you can get it into the media you cannot get any justice. From personal experience, even if you take hard documentary evidence of misconduct to the police, prosecutor or judge, each of them will laugh you out of the room. Who watches the watchers?
  - ipaddr 5y ago
    Even then most media will ignore, youtube will take down
    - worik 5y ago
      > Even then most media will ignore, youtube will take down That is not true! The media is a sick puppy for all sorts of reasons, YouTube a den of evil capitalist exploitation. But your statement is untrue
      - heavyset_go 5y ago
        There are pro-law enforcement groups that brigade YouTube and file bogus complaints, including DMCA violations, against uploaded videos of police misconduct and brutality. If they do it enough, YouTube will even ban the uploaders and take down their videos.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
hprotagonist 5y ago
https://slate.com/technology/2018/12/right-to-record-police-massachusetts-aclu.html https://slate.com/technology/2018/12/right-to-record-police-... well, good luck.
- google234123 5y ago
  Nice job reading the article /s
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
zupreme 5y ago
If one works at Walmart, for example, one does not get to opt out of being filmed by the employer within the workplace. For police, the neighborhood is the workplace, and the taxpaying citizen is the “Employer” of the police. The logic which applies for one, should apply for the other.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
dwg 5y ago
There are several comments regarding the 8ft rule making it impossible to record when indoors or in a car, etc. These these cases are mentioned explicitly in the bill. For the sake of clarity, these are the relevant parts as they appear: 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 STOP RECORDING OR TO LEAVE THE AREA. 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 OCCUPANT OF A VEHICLE WHO IS THE SUBJECT OF A POLICE STOP MAY RECORD THE ENCOUNTER IF THE OCCUPANT IS NOT INTERFERING WITH LAWFUL POLICE ACTIONS. Source: https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/HB2319H.pdf https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/HB2319H.pdf
- andromeduck 5y ago
  They need to make the act of denial a misdemeanor itself elsewise the bad police will always claim youre interfering when you're not.
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  They are making it complicated so people will be afraid to record. The language of the law doesn't matter. It's an attempt to create a chilling affect so they can beat and choke people to death without the public recording it because they'll be afraid of going to jail for that recording. This is a direct reaction to George Floyd and police thinking they shouldn't be held accountable for such things and Republicans kowtowing to the Police Unions.
pengaru 5y ago
When states pass obviously unconstitutional laws that will disintegrate in (costly) court there should be some federal office of oversight monitoring these things with teeth like loss of federal funding disincentivizing such bullshit.
- sumedh 5y ago
  > like loss of federal funding disincentivizing such bullshit. What if the Feds want a similar law?
  - pengaru 5y ago
    The failure mode is no worse than what you have right now. It's just a lack of enforcement and the state does this fuckery until it ends up challenged in court, no?
jmyeet 5y ago
Of course they have. Because when police are recorded killing George Floyd it's obviously the bystanders recording video that directly contradicts the police report on the incident that are the problem. I would say this won't survive a lawsuit but I'm honestly not so sure anymore. This Supreme Court seems to be on the verge of being completely unhinged. Take Texas's controversial attempted end run around judicial review by outsourcing enforcement to private citizens with its abortion law. If that construction holds up, it can be used by bypass any constitutional protection and SCOTUS should know that and they do [1] yet the Court declined to stay the controversial law pending review by the full court [2]. Whether you agree with the law or not, failure to stay a law that clearly alters something that has been established constitutional precedent for 50 years is utterly outrageous. The outright assault by conservatives on civil liberties in the US is beyond shocking. Some of it is clearly virtue signaling. A lot of it is fueling with culture war with wedge issues (eg all the assaults on trans rights). But after McConnell spent 4 years rubberstamping conservative judges at every Federal level, I'm honestly afraid a disturbing amount of such reactionary legislation will actually stand. [1]: https://www.politico.com/news/2021/11/01/justices-texas-abortion-ban-518230 https://www.politico.com/news/2021/11/01/justices-texas-abor... [2]: https://www.texastribune.org/2022/01/20/supreme-court-texas-abortion-law-challenge/ https://www.texastribune.org/2022/01/20/supreme-court-texas-...
- maratbn 5y ago
  The parent comment got down-voted, but I think it is spot on. Maybe officially this new "law" says that it's only illegal to record police within less than 8 feet (or at 8 feet), but of course it will be abused and exploited to harass and arrest persons collecting footage of police violence, and to seize their recording equipment.
kornhole 5y ago
Would it be a good concession to not to record police if they agree not to record us? This means no more ALPR's (Automatic License Plate Readers), shotspotters, surveillance cameras, bulk internet surveillance, and access to commercially available recordings.
- ashwagary 5y ago
  Unfortunately it is not. One group has a monopoly on violence and is only being (slightly) reformed because of overwhelming video evidence of abusive tendencies.
pc2g4d 5y ago
Filming within 8 feet seems like a fair restriction. I'm surprised it wouldn't already be covered under existing laws.
stjohnswarts 5y ago
They want to be able to choke people to death and make it illegal for you to film that is essentially what this bill amounts to. Nice going Arizona.
stevespang 5y ago
rapjr9 5y ago
So another law to take away rights and pervert the intent of rule-of-law. What is next, taking away the right of women to vote? Making Ponzi schemes legal? Legalizing fraud? Making non-white people illegal? They just keep trying and trying until they get it one way or another and it keeps getting more and more blatant.
millzlane 5y ago
Just make or buy cheap body cams.
slantaclaus 5y ago
LOL I bet the people of Arizona didn’t expect THIS when all they wanted was lower taxes
mc4ndr3 5y ago
fascism trending
douglaswelch 5y ago
We all need to get better at filming without looking like we’re filming. A phone in a pocket and not in our hands. An action cam on our backpack or shirtfront. Anything but holding a phone in your hand where it can be seen — and grabbed.
tormock 5y ago
I was just watching a video of about 6 officers killing/pinning down someone and that happened about 2 months before George Floyd's story: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybWJe6G5guc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybWJe6G5guc (no-one got charged even if it was caught on video (and not that it matters, but the victim was white)) ... I have see a lot worst before but not when that many officers were involved.
- maratbn 5y ago
  Wow this is so disturbing to watch the victim alive and well at one moment, and these animals murdering him the next, and over nothing, and in the United States of America. I can't imagine what it's like for this man's kids and family to watch this. This makes me very angry and sad. I hope that one way or another these animals eventually get the justice they deserve. Complete police overhaul is long overdue.
  - tormock 5y ago
    It happens daily in the US... and they also shoot a lot of people: https://github.com/washingtonpost/data-police-shootings https://github.com/washingtonpost/data-police-shootings (about 1000 per year)... I would love to have a source with all killings by police (not just shootings).... I bet it is a lot more then 1,000 per year.
- kingcharles 5y ago
  Only a prosecutor can bring charges against the police. How do you think the prosecutor's office is going to get cases if it antagonizes the police that supply them?
  - Buttons840 5y ago
    We should have another elected official responsible for bringing charges against police, separate from the prosecutors.
    - worik 5y ago
juanani 5y ago
ramesh31 5y ago
I'll take "hilarious conservative bullshit that will be tossed out in the first court case" for $500, Alex.
judge2020 5y ago
> The original proposal from Rep. John Kavanagh made it illegal to record within 15 feet of an officer interacting with someone unless the officer gave permission. The revised bill was approved on a 31-28 party-line vote Feb. 23 and lowers the distance to 8 feet. And the exception for recording when in a car: > It also now allows someone who is in a car stopped by police or is being questioned to tape the encounter and limits the scope of the types of police actions that trigger the law to only those that are possibly dangerous.
- ramesh31 5y ago
  > limits the scope of the types of police actions that trigger the law to only those that are possibly dangerous. And that means the entire law will be applied at will, by the sole discretion of the officer involved. It's the same nonsense they've used for decades to harass anyone they claim "smelled like marijuana".
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- ethbr0 5y ago
  8' seems pretty reasonable. Are there circumstances where you would have a valid interest in filming from closer than 8'? This feels like a response to someone shoving a phone in an officer's face and claiming they're protected by the First Amendment. Which... seems unreasonable. There's a clear public safety interest (both to the officer's own person, and to anyone the officer is interacting with, by not distracting anyone and/or increasing tension in the situation) and the public's right to record seems unimpinged by an 8' limit. But this is from someone recently of Georgia, where we had people on both sides of the election fiasco harassing people while claiming journalistic protections.
  - stonogo 5y ago
    > Are there circumstances where you would have a valid interest in filming from closer than 8'? Aside from the fact that these are public officials doing public work for public money, any video where you want the officer's name tag or badge number to be legible might get tricky to film from far off.
mwt 5y ago
I'm always weary of "legislator/body proposes <thing that seems obviously bad>" headlines since many politicians fundraise via grandstanding bills that are DOA. This passed the house, though, so it's not that sort of thing. And it passed by a party line vote, so with one party having a majority of the senate and governorship, I guess it's going to become law?
hirundo 5y ago
"The original proposal from Rep. John Kavanagh made it illegal to record within 15 feet of an officer interacting with someone unless the officer gave permission. The revised bill was approved on a 31-28 party-line vote Feb. 23 and lowers the distance to 8 feet." Requiring an eight-foot filming bubble around a working cop seems reasonable in terms of not disrupting their job, and unlikely to trigger a federal first amendment slapdown. With a modern phone you can capture all of the detail that's typically needed at that distance. I'm a first amendment absolutist to most people, and this bothers me little.
- ramesh31 5y ago
  >Requiring an eight-foot filming bubble around a working cop seems reasonable in terms of not disrupting their work, and unlikely to trigger a federal first amendment slapdown. Nonsense. There's already a ton of laws on the books about not impeding emergency services in public. This would do nothing but give cops carte blanche to arrest anyone with a camera.
- seanw444 5y ago
  I think leaving the law at "don't interfere with the police during their job" is good enough. Making static rules like this is normally a bad idea. And we won't know why until there's a scenario where we regret passing it.
  - AlwaysRock 5y ago
    Right. Something that comes to mind is is multiple cops arrive and make a perimeter they can continue to move people back and say they have to be 8 feet away from THEM which could make the cop in question many many more feet away. It's easy to see how this will be abused. The existing law seems to be working well.
  - avs733 5y ago
    >I think leaving the law at "don't interfere with the police during their job" is good enough. Those already exist, of course, including[0]: * Failure to comply with police officer; classification * Refusing to Aid a Peace Officer * Obstructing Criminal Investigations of Prosecutions * Refusing to provide truthful name when lawfully detained * Impersonating a public servant * Obstructing a highway or other public thoroughfare No matter how reasonable the law may read on its face, the clear goal is empowering more police abuse and less oversight. The history of police conduct in arizona makes this readily apparent.[e.g., 1] [0] https://www.jacksonwhitelaw.com/criminal-defense-law/obstructing-governmental-operations-arizona-ars-13-2402/ https://www.jacksonwhitelaw.com/criminal-defense-law/obstruc... [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/08/31/actor-steven-seagal-sued-for-driving-tank-into-arizona-home-killing-puppy/?sh=33ad53077489 https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/08/31/actor-steve...
ajju 5y ago
I think such a law would clearly violate the first amendment. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/1/23/21078810/kansas-animal-abuse-law-unconstitutional-factory-farming https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/1/23/21078810/kansas...
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
  Right. It won't survive a lawsuit.
  - giraffe_lady 5y ago
    It can still do a lot of damage. Arrest and exposure to the criminal legal system carries heavy costs and risks for very many people. Those things aren't undone when, years later, it gets declared unconstitutional because someone else's case finally made it through the process.
  - humanistbot 5y ago
    But it will have a chilling effect while the court system works its way to the case, and even after it (hopefully) gets overturned.
    - anonymousab 5y ago
      And of course, they'll just put out a new law some time after the first one is overturned. Maybe they'll spend time rewording it a bit, but I suspect they'll eventually stop bothering with such tedious ceremony. In effect, their desired law will be the law for the vast supermajority of time regardless of constitutionality.
    - 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
      I doubt it. You'll never stop people from making cell phone videos.
      - worik 5y ago
        The chilling effect is reminding the victims of the police that they have no friends in the establishment, surely?
tyronehed 5y ago
I will be curious to see on what grounds the current right-falling-over court will justify this abomination against the First Amendment.
- n8ta 5y ago
  Self incrimination??? Not being able to present evidence of your innocence is not the same as being forced to present evidence of your guilt.
  - lovich 5y ago
    I don't understand what you mean. How would voluntarily video taping a police office be the same as forced self incrimination?
    - n8ta 5y ago
      "Fifth Amendment guarantees the right to a grand jury, forbids “double jeopardy,” and **protects against self-incrimination.**" https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fifth_amendment https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fifth_amendment Being barred from recording (presumably to show your innocence) is not obviously protected by the 5th amendment.
oh_sigh 5y ago
The title should not be editorialized: The actual title is "Arizona House approves ban on close-up videotaping of police officers"
- tylerritchie 5y ago
  Agreed, per the HN guidelines: "... please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize." That said I _was_ going to leave a comment to the effect of "Fox 10 Phoenix would've had a more accurate--less clickbait (much more verbose)--headline with "In a party-line vote, Arizona House Republicans pass ban on close-up video recording of police officers now on to to the senate."
everfree 5y ago
The title is editorialized to be misleading. They aren't moving to ban video recording of police. The ban is on recording from within a distance of 8 feet, while the officer is interacting with someone else, which seems reasonable enough to me. There's nothing you're going to miss by standing 8 feet back from an investigation while you're recording.
- TillE 5y ago
  You think cops are gonna get out a tape measure before arresting you for refusing to move back further? "8 feet" will be like 20+ feet.
  - google234123 5y ago
    The point of the law is to stop the people filming from tiny distances and getting in the way. You can definitely tell 3 feet for example.
    - alphabettsy 5y ago
      There is already a law that makes it illegal to get in the way.
      - google234123 5y ago
        Maybe it’s not working? I’ve seen examples of people getting in the way a lot. There’s nothing wrong with making more specific laws targeting bad behavior.
        alphabettsy 5y ago
        If that’s the case, how do more laws fix an enforcement issue?
        google234123 5y ago
        Raise awareness, make it easier to prosecute - vague laws are harder to convict on.
SubiculumCode 5y ago
ffhhj 5y ago
Recording at 8 feet with halogen lamp to the face and pole microphone, ok sir?
encryptluks2 5y ago
fredgrott 5y ago
obviously they had a problem reading the US Constitution
tgb 5y ago
I’m shocked at the support for this here. It doesn’t matter that it only applies to within 8 feet and if it’s an interaction with someone else. No one should have to know a law about whether they can record police or not. What are you going to do, look up the law when an officer tells you to stop recording? Remember if you refuse it’s a 30 day jail time you could be facing. Want to take bets on whether the officer is lying or you misremembered the allowed distance and conditions? What if a second police officer then approaches you, do they get to box you out by just standing there? There’s no reason this can’t be handled by generic laws for not interfering with police that I’m sure already exist. It’s either pointlessly redundant or will be abused.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- kodah 5y ago
  The argumentation you're using can pretty much apply to any mature legal system. Usually when this is argued it's in the form of an old Bloomberg opinion piece, "70% of people have done something worthy of jail time and didn't even know it" [1] All that to say, that bit of reasoning is probably more apt for a different discussion. I don't really have an opinion as to whether it's ethical or not ethical to video a traffic stop. It does kind of sound like lighting a match when soaked in gasoline though. 1: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2014/dec/08/stephen-carter/watch-out-70-us-have-done-something-could-put-us-j/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2014/dec/08/stephen-ca...
  - tgb 5y ago
    I don’t see that as relevant to my points. My main point is that an officer can easily abuse this law due to asymmetric information/outcome despite the limits in the text. The officers that would do this are exactly the ones that need to be recorded.
    - kodah 5y ago
      True, sorry I didn't get to that point. That point is nothing new about police. Ever seen cops stack charges on someone? They write a long list of micro-grievances that you have committed and make you answer for them individually. The system rests on this idea that no one is harmed by charging someone with a crime, and that it is a DAs job to determine whether or not a crime has been committed. The reality is that DAs rarely drop charges when they should (or don't enough, take your pick) and merely charging someone with a crime has lots of legal and extra-legal consequences. It's a shit system, imo, but depending on the situation people are in they either love or hate this system. If you are an agrieved party, then you likely like this system because it's laced for vengeance and action, while if you're trying to make a case that you didn't violate the law or even know that something was a law it's like walking uphill in a foot of mud.
SN76477 5y ago
Who watches the watchmen?
- m-p-3 5y ago
  A Ring doorbell.
Brian_K_White 5y ago
You're allowed to record your own interaction. Cue the totally random inexplicable wave of phones accedentally knocked out of hands in scuffles or confiscated for examination or plain handcuffings.
- kgwxd 5y ago
  Standard protocol is to assume it's a gun.
  - worik 5y ago
    > Standard protocol is to assume it's a gun. Let me correct that: Standard protocol is to "assume it's a gun".
    - Brian_K_White 5y ago
      I'm actually thinking more attept-at-deniable than that. Like just getting into scuffles where no one can prove the phone didn't get knocked to the ground by honest accident. People who are willing to do things like play copyrighted music so that videos of them get taken down by the copyright machine, while they are in the very act of supposedly upholding law and order, are willing to do literally anything.
codezero 5y ago
This fits with dispatch also going encrypted in a lot of districts. The less people know the better for the police.
nodesocket 5y ago
- Marazan 5y ago
  In what way is reporting on not being able to film police a "leftist" story. It should be fundamentally an outrage to any libertarian right winger.
- DoctorOW 5y ago
  Politics stories can be relevant hacker news. Stories about privacy, intellectual property, and other things the tech community are interested in often intersect with politics.
- knowaveragejoe 5y ago
- brayhite 5y ago
  Why is this a “leftist” issue? Does it matter that traditionally libertarian sources would agree this law is bogus? https://reason.com/2022/01/21/glenn-youngkin-qualified-immunity-nothing-conservative-about-letting-police-violate-our-rights/ https://reason.com/2022/01/21/glenn-youngkin-qualified-immun...
Brian_K_White 5y ago
Since you are allowed to film your own interaction, you just can't be a bystander withn 8 feet, I think that just means go ahead and film anyway, because simply by being ther, it is your interaction also. If a cop is harassing someone for loitering, and you for violating the 8ft rule, either way, you are involved in an interaction between a cop and yourself, and so you are allowed to film it, and so what the hell was the point of the excercise, except to make people afraid and inhibited from protecting themselves?
- giraffe_lady 5y ago
  > what the hell was the point of the excercise, except to make people afraid and inhibited Those aren't unfortunate side effects it's the entire purpose.
- throwawaycities 5y ago
  > and you for violating the 8ft rule, either way, you are involved in an interaction between a cop and yourself, and so you are allowed to film it, and so what the hell was the point of the excercise It’s not about the original interaction (who as you point out would have the right to record), it’s about the secondary crowds that record the original police interaction and endanger the officer/interfere. 15ft or 8ft is kind of arbitrary either way I’m sure there will be abuse, but I’ve also seen some ridiculously entitled people recording on their phones that begin interfering and escalate very tense situations when officers are performing their duties and probably legitimately concerned for their safety and safety of others. Then there are situations like the woman who recorded George Floyd’s murder that was basically crying and pleading for the officer to get off of Floyd.
  - 8note 5y ago
    If they're endangering somebody, why not make that illegal rather than the recording?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
kgwxd 5y ago
Why is video even mentioned? Either it's safe to be within 8 ft or it isn't, regardless if they're recording or not. By making it about video, your actual motive is crystal clear.
morsch 5y ago
This is an issue in Germany, as well. People are prosecuted for recording police interactions regularly; sometimes they get away with it, sometimes they don't. As far as I know, there are no laws specific to recording the police, it's based on laws that apply to recording private conversations and taking/publishing pictures without consent. https://www-deutschlandfunk-de.translate.goog/fotos-und-videos-von-polizeieinsaetzen-wann-haben-100.html?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en https://www-deutschlandfunk-de.translate.goog/fotos-und-vide...
- BrandoElFollito 5y ago
  In France you can record and broadcast police when doing their job. There was an attempt in 2020 to limit this but it was rejected.
- sofixa 5y ago
  Such laws are great, but there should be explicit exceptions for public servants on duty such as police.
  - insickness 5y ago
    In the U.S., the law is delineated where there is "an expectation of privacy." In other words, you can record anyone anywhere in public, but you can't record in a bathroom or dressing room. Police officers should not have an "expectation of privacy." Interestingly enough, you can record through the windows of someone in their house, the courts have determined.
- FpUser 5y ago
  Crooks
barnabee 5y ago
There can be no justification for this.
nwienert 5y ago
For some context not in this thread yet, I’m sure this is being driven in part by cop watchers like James Freeman who are really doing God’s work by bringing attention to rampant corruption of police against recording. Highly recommend watching a few of his videos, here’s a mix of his run ins with Tucson police: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLEHv5tmOgVtXPiKPLK1cCp8An0u8Ftm6g https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLEHv5tmOgVtXPiKPLK1cCp8An... Those saying “8 feet seems reasonable” haven’t thought through this at all. Watching James’ videos the cops are constantly trying to push him, crowd him and generally do anything in (and out) of their power to try and shut him down. With a rule like this they would absolutely abuse it by just having one officer move forward into your space even if you back away. You absolutely cannot give them leeway like this, if you don’t believe me watch some of the videos. It’s really eye opening what they try and get away with.
- jawns 5y ago
  Sean Paul Reyes of the YouTube channel Long Island Audit is another good example: https://www.youtube.com/c/LongIslandAudit https://www.youtube.com/c/LongIslandAudit He has multiple videos of himself engaging in constitutionally protected activity -- filming in public -- but police officers routinely harass him, and in some cases they get physical. In one recent case in Connecticut, he was assaulted and had his phone thrown by an officer who lost his temper, and no other officer intervened: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0Wa33J2Aws https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0Wa33J2Aws I get that some people think the First Amendment Audit community is made up of people who are trying to provoke law enforcement, but Reyes is a great example of an auditor who does nothing provocative other than engaging in lawful, constitutionally protected activity, and yet still gets regularly harassed by police and other public servants.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
asteroidp 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
GoOnThenDoTell 5y ago
Maybe its time to get the sunglasses with cameras in them :/
- ashwagary 5y ago
  I was thinking something similar, is there an easy cheap tech solution that can work around distance laws like these...
NikolaNovak 5y ago
I read title and comments and was ready to be enraged. Heck, I WAS enraged. And then I clicked the link and... 8ft? That's what, just over 2 meters? Who wants and desires to be within a NBA player's distance of a police interaction anyway? At that point you're not observer or recorder you're a participant. I find the title very very very misleading. I believe police interactions should be recorded. I believe we should be free to record them. I believe they should be held to higher standard as the powers they get and their propensity to abuse them are huge. But if you're inside 8ft it feels you're just interfering. Maybe there are angles I have not considered...
- klyrs 5y ago
  You're standing there, recording from 10 feet away. A cop approaches you. Now you're less than 8 feet away. What now?
  - naijaboiler 5y ago
    Also who has the tape and is measuring 8ft. This law criminalizes regular behavior. The actual implementation will inevitably mean a police officer that doesn't want to be recorded can't be recorded. And he will get away with it
- foota 5y ago
  What about the person being accosted by the police?
- bhouston 5y ago
  This is important. If you are in a car that was pulled over you will not be able to film. Some of those videos are for self protection.
  - NobodyNada 5y ago
    > The revised bill [...] allows someone who is in a car stopped by police or is being questioned to tape the encounter and limits the scope of the types of police actions that trigger the law to only those that are possibly dangerous
seanw444 5y ago
State Senate better block this. If they don't, SCOTUS better deny it. I don't care that there's a distance limit. Banning stuff like this in such an undynamic manner is terrible.
antattack 5y ago
Hearing AZ and police in same sentence reminds me of Daniel Shaver[1] [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRlSg1Ww_MY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRlSg1Ww_MY I think recording ban may be actually a good thing as people recording from further than 8ft away should feel more comfortable doing so.
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  The same state that thought it was okay to go around demanding "where are your papers" to Hispanics under Arapaio in the largest county in the state
  - ashwagary 5y ago
    Small correction >demanding "where are your papers" to +brown people in general+ under Arapaio in the largest county in the state.
- halfnormalform 5y ago
  May Philip Brailsford rot in hell.
cyberpunk 5y ago
“If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—for ever.”
- ashwagary 5y ago
  I laughed, partially in horror. What's the source of this quote?
  - cyberpunk 5y ago
    George Orwell 1984
datavirtue 5y ago
I stopped reading when I saw the key stipulation was a distance of within 15 ft. It seems like the only controversial thing here is the ever so typical shitty click bait title.

The solution to rampant police misconduct and law-breaking? Just make it illegal to gather evidence of rampant police misconduct and law-breaking. Problem solved hand wiping motions

jjcon 5y ago
Possible Devils advocate - you can easily gather evidence while not being within 8 feet of an officer. This could be more to do with interfering with police activities than preventing evidence collection. Potentially unconstitutional either way but i imagine there are legit concerns with people/press being that close to officers.
- vpilcx 5y ago
  I don't think you understand how the GOP operates now. 8ft now, next year, they increase it. It's like what they do with abortions.
- mwt 5y ago
  The text of the bill is focused on recording, not physical interference (for which there appears to be existing laws) https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/summary/H.HB2319_022322_HOUSEENGROSSED.pdf https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/summary/H.HB2319_0223...
- Eddy_Viscosity2 5y ago
  Once the police have the ability to arrest people for videoing them, they will use it whenever they please. Then argue after the arrest whether or not it was '8 feet' or not. The person video-taping still gets put into custody and has to deal with all of the consequences of that, including a not so gentle arrest. Then, best case, if they can prove it was outside 8 feet, they might get the charges dropped, but they won't be able to sue or at least it be very unlikely to succeed. The functional result (if this bill passes the senate) is that the police in arizona can, and will, arrest anybody they want to who video tapes them. Following that will be similar bills in other states. Being arrested is a big deal and you could be in jail for some time, even if the charges are dropped. Whereas unlawful arrest could result in consequences for officers, this law would give that arrest at least a pretext of being reasonable, all they have to say is they misjudged the distance and then are off the hook - "honest mistake".
  - Kye 5y ago
    Yep. They already yell "stop resisting!" at people who are clearly not resisting to prime the memories of witnesses. "You're too close!" fits right into that dynamic.
  - nonrandomstring 5y ago
    > Once the police have the ability to arrest people for videoing them, they will use it whenever they please. Maybe not quite. An interesting dilemma arises. If our law abiding, peace officers arrest someone for filming - then that media becomes the evidence in an arrest. So they may safely arrest someone so long as they (the police) are doing nothing wrong while the cameraman is is "illegally" filming them. But then why would anyone be filming police who are doing nothing wrong? As soon as the police are engaged in acts of violence, and people start filming them, it would not be in their interests to arrest anyone, unless they were prepared to follow through, destroy evidence, intimidate detainees into silence or commit perjury. So this idea puts the police into an interesting bind, and suggests it would only have consequences that lead quickly to tyrannical outcomes.
    - naijaboiler 5y ago
      > As soon as the police are engaged in acts of violence, and people start filming them, it would not be in their interests to arrest anyone, unless they were prepared to follow through, destroy evidence, intimidate detainees into silence or commit perjury. This is such a naive take from someone who had never had to face police officers blatantly violating your rights and physical well-being.
      - nonrandomstring 5y ago
        > This is such a naive take from someone who had never had to face police officers blatantly violating your rights and physical well-being. What on earth do you think you know about that?
    - DoctorOW 5y ago
      > As soon as the police are engaged in acts of violence, and people start filming them, it would not be in their interests to arrest anyone, unless they were prepared to follow through, destroy evidence, intimidate detainees into silence or commit perjury. We already see this happening. IIRC Police unions are the only people allowed to review the evidence for the first 24 hours and are free from consequence were it to get "lost".
- hsfhdfhsdfhs 5y ago
  The problem is if your rights are being violated by an officer, that officer is probably within eight feet of you. It's bullshit that you're not permitted to record your rights being violated.
  - everfree 5y ago
    According to the article, the ban only applies when the officer is interacting with someone other than yourself.
    - alphabettsy 5y ago
      Then the law isn’t necessary because officers already have lawful authority to enforce a “reasonable” safety boundary.
    - Brian_K_White 5y ago
      The officer that just took your phone from you? Or handcuffed you? That officer? Or one of the other officers standing around in any of the other 359 degrees where your phone isn't pointing? There is just no way to make any of their excuses actually hold water.
- Brian_K_White 5y ago
  "you can easily gather evidence while not being within 8 feet" Only a bystander can. The person who needs it the most, can't. Meanwhile, the police's own body cam is on while they are within 8 feet of you. Assuming they didn't turn it off, assuming you get access to it later, in a timely manner, unedited... There is an argument about interference and safety, but no valid argument in the end, since there is no way to allow the limitation without creating a tool for abuse that's worse. Better to let actual cases of interference be tried as such. Make the officer have to invoke a process after the fact, and have to defend their claim of criminal or endagering interference in court.
  - worik 5y ago
    Police body cam. That would be good. In fact, if my impression of the news is correct, police body cams do more to protect the police from unjustified charges of abuse than they do to protect the victims of police abuse. Perhaps that is an effect of police unions? Perhaps it is simply a good thing and we should have more of them? People independent of the police filming it seems like a good idea to me. For all concerned.
    - Brian_K_White 5y ago
      If only failing to have the cam present or running were considered a super bad crime instigating a huge investigation with a bias towards guilt and you have to prove innocense. Instead, at least in some places, cops get away with turning their cams off or otherwise suffering mysterious glitches and data loss. There used to be standards for certain things where the appearance of imporopriety was bad enough all by itself, exactly because some things can't really be proven, like how you can't prove a negative. That seems to be pretty much gone now. Judges don't recuse themselves from cases where they have a conflict of interest, and the other judges just let them, etc. So, in the sweet naive child view of the world, a cop merely no being able to produce their body cam footage for some incident, no matter what they say or what the story is should be almost automatic grounds for dismissal of the whole case and maybe the cop too, or at least a huge stink and huge investigation. But I don't think we live in that world we tell gradeschool kids we live in.
    - 5y ago
- duskwuff 5y ago
  > Possible Devils advocate - you can easily gather evidence while not being within 8 feet of an officer. Until the officer deliberately approaches you to prevent you from recording?
  - jjcon 5y ago
    The law specifically states you can film if the officer is interacting with you
    - wave_function 5y ago
      How does this even work? Police officer walks to within 7 feet of you: you’re not allowed to film. They tell you to stop filming and then suddenly you’re allowed to because they’re interacting with you?
    - lovich 5y ago
      So he walks up to you silently and then arrests you for having recorded him within 8 feet while he had not interacted with you. The cops do not follow the law in good faith ever and this gives them another trivially abused tool, like when they would stop people because they "smelled" pot that never existed
- TeaDrunk 5y ago
  If a cop is actively walking towards you, do you have to stop recording once they reach 8 feet? How can you gather evidence if there are a dozen cops surrounding the abuse, with them approaching anyone who is outside 8 feet to force them further and further away?
- nkrisc 5y ago
  They can arrest you for recording at any distance, and then drop the charges later and likely just get away with it. It won’t matter either way because they already achieved their goal: stop you from recording.
  - worik 5y ago
    That is a very common tactic in my experience. Arrest willy nilly, on court day withdraw the charges. You can sue for "wrongful arrest". That would be a tactically silly idea for almost everybody who has these sorts of encounters
    - nkrisc 5y ago
      Even if you sued successfully for that it wouldn’t matter. Their goal was to stop your recording whatever worse thing they were presumably doing which can never be undone.
- jkaplowitz 5y ago
  Journalist: records from 9 feet away Police: Stop recording me. Journalist: I'm more than 8 feet away, I have the right to record. Police: You're 7 feet away. Last warning. Journalist: is still 9 feet away so keeps recording Police: Arrests journalist, confiscates recording District attorney: Reviews footage, sees that the journalist was more than 8 feet away, drops charges Journalist: sues for wrongful arrest Court: Being able to count distance accurately is not a job requirement for a police officer. Wrongful arrest claim denied Journalist: files claim for return of recording Police department: We are unable to find this recording. (Or, alternatively, they wipe the media before returning it.)
- yalogin 5y ago
  You know what’s going to happen. The cop sees the person recording and walks towards him asking if they are recording and gets inside 8 ft and arrests them. Easy! Or another cop dashes the person recording just to stop and arrest the recording
quantified 5y ago
I bet it goes through because 8 feet is close enough to get to a cop without getting bit, and it’s up to the cop saying it’s dangerous which they’ll never do unless it really is.
kingcharles 5y ago
LOL. What would you do if you had evidence of police misconduct? Take it to the police? Take it to the prosecutor? Take it to a judge? Unless you can get it into the media you cannot get any justice. From personal experience, even if you take hard documentary evidence of misconduct to the police, prosecutor or judge, each of them will laugh you out of the room. Who watches the watchers?
- ipaddr 5y ago
  Even then most media will ignore, youtube will take down
  - worik 5y ago
    > Even then most media will ignore, youtube will take down That is not true! The media is a sick puppy for all sorts of reasons, YouTube a den of evil capitalist exploitation. But your statement is untrue
    - heavyset_go 5y ago
      There are pro-law enforcement groups that brigade YouTube and file bogus complaints, including DMCA violations, against uploaded videos of police misconduct and brutality. If they do it enough, YouTube will even ban the uploaders and take down their videos.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

hprotagonist 5y ago

https://slate.com/technology/2018/12/right-to-record-police-massachusetts-aclu.html https://slate.com/technology/2018/12/right-to-record-police-... well, good luck.

google234123 5y ago
Nice job reading the article /s

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

zupreme 5y ago

If one works at Walmart, for example, one does not get to opt out of being filmed by the employer within the workplace. For police, the neighborhood is the workplace, and the taxpaying citizen is the “Employer” of the police. The logic which applies for one, should apply for the other.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

dwg 5y ago

There are several comments regarding the 8ft rule making it impossible to record when indoors or in a car, etc. These these cases are mentioned explicitly in the bill. For the sake of clarity, these are the relevant parts as they appear: 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 STOP RECORDING OR TO LEAVE THE AREA. 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 OCCUPANT OF A VEHICLE WHO IS THE SUBJECT OF A POLICE STOP MAY RECORD THE ENCOUNTER IF THE OCCUPANT IS NOT INTERFERING WITH LAWFUL POLICE ACTIONS. Source: https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/HB2319H.pdf https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/HB2319H.pdf

andromeduck 5y ago
They need to make the act of denial a misdemeanor itself elsewise the bad police will always claim youre interfering when you're not.
stjohnswarts 5y ago
They are making it complicated so people will be afraid to record. The language of the law doesn't matter. It's an attempt to create a chilling affect so they can beat and choke people to death without the public recording it because they'll be afraid of going to jail for that recording. This is a direct reaction to George Floyd and police thinking they shouldn't be held accountable for such things and Republicans kowtowing to the Police Unions.

pengaru 5y ago

When states pass obviously unconstitutional laws that will disintegrate in (costly) court there should be some federal office of oversight monitoring these things with teeth like loss of federal funding disincentivizing such bullshit.

sumedh 5y ago
> like loss of federal funding disincentivizing such bullshit. What if the Feds want a similar law?
- pengaru 5y ago
  The failure mode is no worse than what you have right now. It's just a lack of enforcement and the state does this fuckery until it ends up challenged in court, no?

jmyeet 5y ago

Of course they have. Because when police are recorded killing George Floyd it's obviously the bystanders recording video that directly contradicts the police report on the incident that are the problem. I would say this won't survive a lawsuit but I'm honestly not so sure anymore. This Supreme Court seems to be on the verge of being completely unhinged. Take Texas's controversial attempted end run around judicial review by outsourcing enforcement to private citizens with its abortion law. If that construction holds up, it can be used by bypass any constitutional protection and SCOTUS should know that and they do [1] yet the Court declined to stay the controversial law pending review by the full court [2]. Whether you agree with the law or not, failure to stay a law that clearly alters something that has been established constitutional precedent for 50 years is utterly outrageous. The outright assault by conservatives on civil liberties in the US is beyond shocking. Some of it is clearly virtue signaling. A lot of it is fueling with culture war with wedge issues (eg all the assaults on trans rights). But after McConnell spent 4 years rubberstamping conservative judges at every Federal level, I'm honestly afraid a disturbing amount of such reactionary legislation will actually stand. [1]: https://www.politico.com/news/2021/11/01/justices-texas-abortion-ban-518230 https://www.politico.com/news/2021/11/01/justices-texas-abor... [2]: https://www.texastribune.org/2022/01/20/supreme-court-texas-abortion-law-challenge/ https://www.texastribune.org/2022/01/20/supreme-court-texas-...

maratbn 5y ago
The parent comment got down-voted, but I think it is spot on. Maybe officially this new "law" says that it's only illegal to record police within less than 8 feet (or at 8 feet), but of course it will be abused and exploited to harass and arrest persons collecting footage of police violence, and to seize their recording equipment.

kornhole 5y ago

Would it be a good concession to not to record police if they agree not to record us? This means no more ALPR's (Automatic License Plate Readers), shotspotters, surveillance cameras, bulk internet surveillance, and access to commercially available recordings.

ashwagary 5y ago
Unfortunately it is not. One group has a monopoly on violence and is only being (slightly) reformed because of overwhelming video evidence of abusive tendencies.

pc2g4d 5y ago

Filming within 8 feet seems like a fair restriction. I'm surprised it wouldn't already be covered under existing laws.

stjohnswarts 5y ago

They want to be able to choke people to death and make it illegal for you to film that is essentially what this bill amounts to. Nice going Arizona.

stevespang 5y ago

rapjr9 5y ago

So another law to take away rights and pervert the intent of rule-of-law. What is next, taking away the right of women to vote? Making Ponzi schemes legal? Legalizing fraud? Making non-white people illegal? They just keep trying and trying until they get it one way or another and it keeps getting more and more blatant.

millzlane 5y ago

Just make or buy cheap body cams.

slantaclaus 5y ago

LOL I bet the people of Arizona didn’t expect THIS when all they wanted was lower taxes

mc4ndr3 5y ago

fascism trending

douglaswelch 5y ago

We all need to get better at filming without looking like we’re filming. A phone in a pocket and not in our hands. An action cam on our backpack or shirtfront. Anything but holding a phone in your hand where it can be seen — and grabbed.

tormock 5y ago

I was just watching a video of about 6 officers killing/pinning down someone and that happened about 2 months before George Floyd's story: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybWJe6G5guc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybWJe6G5guc (no-one got charged even if it was caught on video (and not that it matters, but the victim was white)) ... I have see a lot worst before but not when that many officers were involved.

maratbn 5y ago
Wow this is so disturbing to watch the victim alive and well at one moment, and these animals murdering him the next, and over nothing, and in the United States of America. I can't imagine what it's like for this man's kids and family to watch this. This makes me very angry and sad. I hope that one way or another these animals eventually get the justice they deserve. Complete police overhaul is long overdue.
- tormock 5y ago
  It happens daily in the US... and they also shoot a lot of people: https://github.com/washingtonpost/data-police-shootings https://github.com/washingtonpost/data-police-shootings (about 1000 per year)... I would love to have a source with all killings by police (not just shootings).... I bet it is a lot more then 1,000 per year.
kingcharles 5y ago
Only a prosecutor can bring charges against the police. How do you think the prosecutor's office is going to get cases if it antagonizes the police that supply them?
- Buttons840 5y ago
  We should have another elected official responsible for bringing charges against police, separate from the prosecutors.
  - worik 5y ago

juanani 5y ago

ramesh31 5y ago

I'll take "hilarious conservative bullshit that will be tossed out in the first court case" for $500, Alex.

judge2020 5y ago

> The original proposal from Rep. John Kavanagh made it illegal to record within 15 feet of an officer interacting with someone unless the officer gave permission. The revised bill was approved on a 31-28 party-line vote Feb. 23 and lowers the distance to 8 feet. And the exception for recording when in a car: > It also now allows someone who is in a car stopped by police or is being questioned to tape the encounter and limits the scope of the types of police actions that trigger the law to only those that are possibly dangerous.

ramesh31 5y ago
> limits the scope of the types of police actions that trigger the law to only those that are possibly dangerous. And that means the entire law will be applied at will, by the sole discretion of the officer involved. It's the same nonsense they've used for decades to harass anyone they claim "smelled like marijuana".
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
ethbr0 5y ago
8' seems pretty reasonable. Are there circumstances where you would have a valid interest in filming from closer than 8'? This feels like a response to someone shoving a phone in an officer's face and claiming they're protected by the First Amendment. Which... seems unreasonable. There's a clear public safety interest (both to the officer's own person, and to anyone the officer is interacting with, by not distracting anyone and/or increasing tension in the situation) and the public's right to record seems unimpinged by an 8' limit. But this is from someone recently of Georgia, where we had people on both sides of the election fiasco harassing people while claiming journalistic protections.
- stonogo 5y ago
  > Are there circumstances where you would have a valid interest in filming from closer than 8'? Aside from the fact that these are public officials doing public work for public money, any video where you want the officer's name tag or badge number to be legible might get tricky to film from far off.

mwt 5y ago

I'm always weary of "legislator/body proposes <thing that seems obviously bad>" headlines since many politicians fundraise via grandstanding bills that are DOA. This passed the house, though, so it's not that sort of thing. And it passed by a party line vote, so with one party having a majority of the senate and governorship, I guess it's going to become law?

hirundo 5y ago

"The original proposal from Rep. John Kavanagh made it illegal to record within 15 feet of an officer interacting with someone unless the officer gave permission. The revised bill was approved on a 31-28 party-line vote Feb. 23 and lowers the distance to 8 feet." Requiring an eight-foot filming bubble around a working cop seems reasonable in terms of not disrupting their job, and unlikely to trigger a federal first amendment slapdown. With a modern phone you can capture all of the detail that's typically needed at that distance. I'm a first amendment absolutist to most people, and this bothers me little.

ramesh31 5y ago
>Requiring an eight-foot filming bubble around a working cop seems reasonable in terms of not disrupting their work, and unlikely to trigger a federal first amendment slapdown. Nonsense. There's already a ton of laws on the books about not impeding emergency services in public. This would do nothing but give cops carte blanche to arrest anyone with a camera.
seanw444 5y ago
I think leaving the law at "don't interfere with the police during their job" is good enough. Making static rules like this is normally a bad idea. And we won't know why until there's a scenario where we regret passing it.
- AlwaysRock 5y ago
  Right. Something that comes to mind is is multiple cops arrive and make a perimeter they can continue to move people back and say they have to be 8 feet away from THEM which could make the cop in question many many more feet away. It's easy to see how this will be abused. The existing law seems to be working well.
- avs733 5y ago
  >I think leaving the law at "don't interfere with the police during their job" is good enough. Those already exist, of course, including[0]: * Failure to comply with police officer; classification * Refusing to Aid a Peace Officer * Obstructing Criminal Investigations of Prosecutions * Refusing to provide truthful name when lawfully detained * Impersonating a public servant * Obstructing a highway or other public thoroughfare No matter how reasonable the law may read on its face, the clear goal is empowering more police abuse and less oversight. The history of police conduct in arizona makes this readily apparent.[e.g., 1] [0] https://www.jacksonwhitelaw.com/criminal-defense-law/obstructing-governmental-operations-arizona-ars-13-2402/ https://www.jacksonwhitelaw.com/criminal-defense-law/obstruc... [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/08/31/actor-steven-seagal-sued-for-driving-tank-into-arizona-home-killing-puppy/?sh=33ad53077489 https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/08/31/actor-steve...

ajju 5y ago

I think such a law would clearly violate the first amendment. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/1/23/21078810/kansas-animal-abuse-law-unconstitutional-factory-farming https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/1/23/21078810/kansas...

2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
Right. It won't survive a lawsuit.
- giraffe_lady 5y ago
  It can still do a lot of damage. Arrest and exposure to the criminal legal system carries heavy costs and risks for very many people. Those things aren't undone when, years later, it gets declared unconstitutional because someone else's case finally made it through the process.
- humanistbot 5y ago
  But it will have a chilling effect while the court system works its way to the case, and even after it (hopefully) gets overturned.
  - anonymousab 5y ago
    And of course, they'll just put out a new law some time after the first one is overturned. Maybe they'll spend time rewording it a bit, but I suspect they'll eventually stop bothering with such tedious ceremony. In effect, their desired law will be the law for the vast supermajority of time regardless of constitutionality.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
    I doubt it. You'll never stop people from making cell phone videos.
    - worik 5y ago
      The chilling effect is reminding the victims of the police that they have no friends in the establishment, surely?

tyronehed 5y ago

I will be curious to see on what grounds the current right-falling-over court will justify this abomination against the First Amendment.

n8ta 5y ago
Self incrimination??? Not being able to present evidence of your innocence is not the same as being forced to present evidence of your guilt.
- lovich 5y ago
  I don't understand what you mean. How would voluntarily video taping a police office be the same as forced self incrimination?
  - n8ta 5y ago
    "Fifth Amendment guarantees the right to a grand jury, forbids “double jeopardy,” and **protects against self-incrimination.**" https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fifth_amendment https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fifth_amendment Being barred from recording (presumably to show your innocence) is not obviously protected by the 5th amendment.

oh_sigh 5y ago

The title should not be editorialized: The actual title is "Arizona House approves ban on close-up videotaping of police officers"

tylerritchie 5y ago
Agreed, per the HN guidelines: "... please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize." That said I _was_ going to leave a comment to the effect of "Fox 10 Phoenix would've had a more accurate--less clickbait (much more verbose)--headline with "In a party-line vote, Arizona House Republicans pass ban on close-up video recording of police officers now on to to the senate."

everfree 5y ago

The title is editorialized to be misleading. They aren't moving to ban video recording of police. The ban is on recording from within a distance of 8 feet, while the officer is interacting with someone else, which seems reasonable enough to me. There's nothing you're going to miss by standing 8 feet back from an investigation while you're recording.

TillE 5y ago
You think cops are gonna get out a tape measure before arresting you for refusing to move back further? "8 feet" will be like 20+ feet.
- google234123 5y ago
  The point of the law is to stop the people filming from tiny distances and getting in the way. You can definitely tell 3 feet for example.
  - alphabettsy 5y ago
    There is already a law that makes it illegal to get in the way.
    - google234123 5y ago
      Maybe it’s not working? I’ve seen examples of people getting in the way a lot. There’s nothing wrong with making more specific laws targeting bad behavior.
      - alphabettsy 5y ago
        If that’s the case, how do more laws fix an enforcement issue?
        google234123 5y ago
        Raise awareness, make it easier to prosecute - vague laws are harder to convict on.

SubiculumCode 5y ago

ffhhj 5y ago

Recording at 8 feet with halogen lamp to the face and pole microphone, ok sir?

encryptluks2 5y ago

fredgrott 5y ago

obviously they had a problem reading the US Constitution

tgb 5y ago

I’m shocked at the support for this here. It doesn’t matter that it only applies to within 8 feet and if it’s an interaction with someone else. No one should have to know a law about whether they can record police or not. What are you going to do, look up the law when an officer tells you to stop recording? Remember if you refuse it’s a 30 day jail time you could be facing. Want to take bets on whether the officer is lying or you misremembered the allowed distance and conditions? What if a second police officer then approaches you, do they get to box you out by just standing there? There’s no reason this can’t be handled by generic laws for not interfering with police that I’m sure already exist. It’s either pointlessly redundant or will be abused.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
kodah 5y ago
The argumentation you're using can pretty much apply to any mature legal system. Usually when this is argued it's in the form of an old Bloomberg opinion piece, "70% of people have done something worthy of jail time and didn't even know it" [1] All that to say, that bit of reasoning is probably more apt for a different discussion. I don't really have an opinion as to whether it's ethical or not ethical to video a traffic stop. It does kind of sound like lighting a match when soaked in gasoline though. 1: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2014/dec/08/stephen-carter/watch-out-70-us-have-done-something-could-put-us-j/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2014/dec/08/stephen-ca...
- tgb 5y ago
  I don’t see that as relevant to my points. My main point is that an officer can easily abuse this law due to asymmetric information/outcome despite the limits in the text. The officers that would do this are exactly the ones that need to be recorded.
  - kodah 5y ago
    True, sorry I didn't get to that point. That point is nothing new about police. Ever seen cops stack charges on someone? They write a long list of micro-grievances that you have committed and make you answer for them individually. The system rests on this idea that no one is harmed by charging someone with a crime, and that it is a DAs job to determine whether or not a crime has been committed. The reality is that DAs rarely drop charges when they should (or don't enough, take your pick) and merely charging someone with a crime has lots of legal and extra-legal consequences. It's a shit system, imo, but depending on the situation people are in they either love or hate this system. If you are an agrieved party, then you likely like this system because it's laced for vengeance and action, while if you're trying to make a case that you didn't violate the law or even know that something was a law it's like walking uphill in a foot of mud.

SN76477 5y ago

Who watches the watchmen?

m-p-3 5y ago
A Ring doorbell.

Brian_K_White 5y ago

You're allowed to record your own interaction. Cue the totally random inexplicable wave of phones accedentally knocked out of hands in scuffles or confiscated for examination or plain handcuffings.

kgwxd 5y ago
Standard protocol is to assume it's a gun.
- worik 5y ago
  > Standard protocol is to assume it's a gun. Let me correct that: Standard protocol is to "assume it's a gun".
  - Brian_K_White 5y ago
    I'm actually thinking more attept-at-deniable than that. Like just getting into scuffles where no one can prove the phone didn't get knocked to the ground by honest accident. People who are willing to do things like play copyrighted music so that videos of them get taken down by the copyright machine, while they are in the very act of supposedly upholding law and order, are willing to do literally anything.

codezero 5y ago

This fits with dispatch also going encrypted in a lot of districts. The less people know the better for the police.

nodesocket 5y ago

Marazan 5y ago
In what way is reporting on not being able to film police a "leftist" story. It should be fundamentally an outrage to any libertarian right winger.
DoctorOW 5y ago
Politics stories can be relevant hacker news. Stories about privacy, intellectual property, and other things the tech community are interested in often intersect with politics.
knowaveragejoe 5y ago
brayhite 5y ago
Why is this a “leftist” issue? Does it matter that traditionally libertarian sources would agree this law is bogus? https://reason.com/2022/01/21/glenn-youngkin-qualified-immunity-nothing-conservative-about-letting-police-violate-our-rights/ https://reason.com/2022/01/21/glenn-youngkin-qualified-immun...

Brian_K_White 5y ago

Since you are allowed to film your own interaction, you just can't be a bystander withn 8 feet, I think that just means go ahead and film anyway, because simply by being ther, it is your interaction also. If a cop is harassing someone for loitering, and you for violating the 8ft rule, either way, you are involved in an interaction between a cop and yourself, and so you are allowed to film it, and so what the hell was the point of the excercise, except to make people afraid and inhibited from protecting themselves?

giraffe_lady 5y ago
> what the hell was the point of the excercise, except to make people afraid and inhibited Those aren't unfortunate side effects it's the entire purpose.
throwawaycities 5y ago
> and you for violating the 8ft rule, either way, you are involved in an interaction between a cop and yourself, and so you are allowed to film it, and so what the hell was the point of the excercise It’s not about the original interaction (who as you point out would have the right to record), it’s about the secondary crowds that record the original police interaction and endanger the officer/interfere. 15ft or 8ft is kind of arbitrary either way I’m sure there will be abuse, but I’ve also seen some ridiculously entitled people recording on their phones that begin interfering and escalate very tense situations when officers are performing their duties and probably legitimately concerned for their safety and safety of others. Then there are situations like the woman who recorded George Floyd’s murder that was basically crying and pleading for the officer to get off of Floyd.
- 8note 5y ago
  If they're endangering somebody, why not make that illegal rather than the recording?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

kgwxd 5y ago

Why is video even mentioned? Either it's safe to be within 8 ft or it isn't, regardless if they're recording or not. By making it about video, your actual motive is crystal clear.

morsch 5y ago

This is an issue in Germany, as well. People are prosecuted for recording police interactions regularly; sometimes they get away with it, sometimes they don't. As far as I know, there are no laws specific to recording the police, it's based on laws that apply to recording private conversations and taking/publishing pictures without consent. https://www-deutschlandfunk-de.translate.goog/fotos-und-videos-von-polizeieinsaetzen-wann-haben-100.html?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en https://www-deutschlandfunk-de.translate.goog/fotos-und-vide...

BrandoElFollito 5y ago
In France you can record and broadcast police when doing their job. There was an attempt in 2020 to limit this but it was rejected.
sofixa 5y ago
Such laws are great, but there should be explicit exceptions for public servants on duty such as police.
- insickness 5y ago
  In the U.S., the law is delineated where there is "an expectation of privacy." In other words, you can record anyone anywhere in public, but you can't record in a bathroom or dressing room. Police officers should not have an "expectation of privacy." Interestingly enough, you can record through the windows of someone in their house, the courts have determined.
FpUser 5y ago
Crooks

barnabee 5y ago

There can be no justification for this.

nwienert 5y ago

For some context not in this thread yet, I’m sure this is being driven in part by cop watchers like James Freeman who are really doing God’s work by bringing attention to rampant corruption of police against recording. Highly recommend watching a few of his videos, here’s a mix of his run ins with Tucson police: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLEHv5tmOgVtXPiKPLK1cCp8An0u8Ftm6g https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLEHv5tmOgVtXPiKPLK1cCp8An... Those saying “8 feet seems reasonable” haven’t thought through this at all. Watching James’ videos the cops are constantly trying to push him, crowd him and generally do anything in (and out) of their power to try and shut him down. With a rule like this they would absolutely abuse it by just having one officer move forward into your space even if you back away. You absolutely cannot give them leeway like this, if you don’t believe me watch some of the videos. It’s really eye opening what they try and get away with.

jawns 5y ago
Sean Paul Reyes of the YouTube channel Long Island Audit is another good example: https://www.youtube.com/c/LongIslandAudit https://www.youtube.com/c/LongIslandAudit He has multiple videos of himself engaging in constitutionally protected activity -- filming in public -- but police officers routinely harass him, and in some cases they get physical. In one recent case in Connecticut, he was assaulted and had his phone thrown by an officer who lost his temper, and no other officer intervened: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0Wa33J2Aws https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0Wa33J2Aws I get that some people think the First Amendment Audit community is made up of people who are trying to provoke law enforcement, but Reyes is a great example of an auditor who does nothing provocative other than engaging in lawful, constitutionally protected activity, and yet still gets regularly harassed by police and other public servants.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

asteroidp 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

GoOnThenDoTell 5y ago

Maybe its time to get the sunglasses with cameras in them :/

ashwagary 5y ago
I was thinking something similar, is there an easy cheap tech solution that can work around distance laws like these...

NikolaNovak 5y ago

I read title and comments and was ready to be enraged. Heck, I WAS enraged. And then I clicked the link and... 8ft? That's what, just over 2 meters? Who wants and desires to be within a NBA player's distance of a police interaction anyway? At that point you're not observer or recorder you're a participant. I find the title very very very misleading. I believe police interactions should be recorded. I believe we should be free to record them. I believe they should be held to higher standard as the powers they get and their propensity to abuse them are huge. But if you're inside 8ft it feels you're just interfering. Maybe there are angles I have not considered...

klyrs 5y ago
You're standing there, recording from 10 feet away. A cop approaches you. Now you're less than 8 feet away. What now?
- naijaboiler 5y ago
  Also who has the tape and is measuring 8ft. This law criminalizes regular behavior. The actual implementation will inevitably mean a police officer that doesn't want to be recorded can't be recorded. And he will get away with it
foota 5y ago
What about the person being accosted by the police?
bhouston 5y ago
This is important. If you are in a car that was pulled over you will not be able to film. Some of those videos are for self protection.
- NobodyNada 5y ago
  > The revised bill [...] allows someone who is in a car stopped by police or is being questioned to tape the encounter and limits the scope of the types of police actions that trigger the law to only those that are possibly dangerous

seanw444 5y ago

State Senate better block this. If they don't, SCOTUS better deny it. I don't care that there's a distance limit. Banning stuff like this in such an undynamic manner is terrible.

antattack 5y ago

Hearing AZ and police in same sentence reminds me of Daniel Shaver[1] [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRlSg1Ww_MY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRlSg1Ww_MY I think recording ban may be actually a good thing as people recording from further than 8ft away should feel more comfortable doing so.

stjohnswarts 5y ago
The same state that thought it was okay to go around demanding "where are your papers" to Hispanics under Arapaio in the largest county in the state
- ashwagary 5y ago
  Small correction >demanding "where are your papers" to +brown people in general+ under Arapaio in the largest county in the state.
halfnormalform 5y ago
May Philip Brailsford rot in hell.

cyberpunk 5y ago

“If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—for ever.”

ashwagary 5y ago
I laughed, partially in horror. What's the source of this quote?
- cyberpunk 5y ago
  George Orwell 1984

datavirtue 5y ago

I stopped reading when I saw the key stipulation was a distance of within 15 ft. It seems like the only controversial thing here is the ever so typical shitty click bait title.