7 ms·

"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 permissio

"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...
  - insickness 5y ago
    The problem is when officers construe filming video as interfering with their job. I wonder if this law would paradoxically enshrine the right to film officers anywhere outside of 8 feet.
    - avs733 5y ago
      This law is just another attempt to empower police to harass individuals and avoid accountability.
      - seanp2k2 5y ago
        It’s also virtue signaling for red team for the upcoming election https://ballotpedia.org/Arizona_elections,_2022 https://ballotpedia.org/Arizona_elections,_2022 It’s something for them to point to and imply “I did that because I know how much you dislike people trying to get cops in trouble for /serving and protecting/“
jyounker 5y ago
Note that this makes it impossible to film a police officer while they are confronting you.
- oh_sigh 5y ago
  It's always better to go directly to the source, rather than rely on someone else's summary of something as a source for analysis. Your concern is addressed in the actual text: https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/summary/H.HB2319_022322_HOUSEENGROSSED.pdf https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/summary/H.HB2319_0223... > Provision 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)
  - jyounker 5y ago
    Yeah, I actually did that, and just came back to delete my comment, but you've already replied, so I can't any more :)
  - gorbachev 5y ago
    That is statement is going to be used quite often by cops.
  - Brian_K_White 5y ago
    The officer has taken your phone. Or knocked it to the ground while you were "resisting". Or you are handcuffed. Or there are multiple officers but your phone only points in one direction at a time. The officers own body cams are on while they are within 8 feet of you. There is no way to make this valid. The supposed rationale falls apart under any scrutiny at all.
    - oh_sigh 5y ago
      So basically, because a cop can lie about you breaking the law, the law should not exist? Isn't that the case with obstruction as-is?
TeaDrunk 5y ago
Scenario: A policeman is performing brutality on someone while multiple peers observe. Those peers approach anyone recording, such that it forces anyone recording to traverse further and further away. (And if those people stand their ground, cops are now able to arrest them for being within 8 feet.) What then?
- sokoloff 5y ago
  The person who is the subject of a contact may film that contact without an 8’ buffer. If I’m filming officer A from 10’ away and officer B comes to make contact with me, it does not appear that I’m obligated to stay 8’ from officer B not to stop filming that contact.
avs733 5y ago
> seems reasonable which is exactly the goal...something that seems reasonable while enabling abuse.
worik 5y ago
Reading between the lines the purpose of the bill is not to make police jobs easier by keeping clear space around them. IMO the purpose is to remind the plebeians exactly what's what and what their position in society is.
stonogo 5y ago
This is on the front page of Reddit as I type this: https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/thuy4h/the_cop_literally_put_that_mans_hand_on_the_stick/ https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/thuy4h/the_cop_li... Looking at this video, is the filming person in the car more than eight feet away from all of the involved police at all times? Because there are cops coming and going, and if one of them approached the car, the filming person would be compelled to either stop recording or get out the other side of the car. Laws like this are built for abuse. On the face of it, the law is reasonable, if mildly pointless. In practice, it relies on a very specific distance being maintained at all times, even if one of the cops decides to approach the cameraman, and relies on the police to estimate that eight feet in good faith. This is going to lead to a lot of arrests and a lot of dismissed charges, but the net result will be a general chilling effect on recording police, because there are just too many things that can go wrong and run you afoul of this law.

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...
- insickness 5y ago
  The problem is when officers construe filming video as interfering with their job. I wonder if this law would paradoxically enshrine the right to film officers anywhere outside of 8 feet.
  - avs733 5y ago
    This law is just another attempt to empower police to harass individuals and avoid accountability.
    - seanp2k2 5y ago
      It’s also virtue signaling for red team for the upcoming election https://ballotpedia.org/Arizona_elections,_2022 https://ballotpedia.org/Arizona_elections,_2022 It’s something for them to point to and imply “I did that because I know how much you dislike people trying to get cops in trouble for /serving and protecting/“

jyounker 5y ago

Note that this makes it impossible to film a police officer while they are confronting you.

oh_sigh 5y ago
It's always better to go directly to the source, rather than rely on someone else's summary of something as a source for analysis. Your concern is addressed in the actual text: https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/summary/H.HB2319_022322_HOUSEENGROSSED.pdf https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/summary/H.HB2319_0223... > Provision 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)
- jyounker 5y ago
  Yeah, I actually did that, and just came back to delete my comment, but you've already replied, so I can't any more :)
- gorbachev 5y ago
  That is statement is going to be used quite often by cops.
- Brian_K_White 5y ago
  The officer has taken your phone. Or knocked it to the ground while you were "resisting". Or you are handcuffed. Or there are multiple officers but your phone only points in one direction at a time. The officers own body cams are on while they are within 8 feet of you. There is no way to make this valid. The supposed rationale falls apart under any scrutiny at all.
  - oh_sigh 5y ago
    So basically, because a cop can lie about you breaking the law, the law should not exist? Isn't that the case with obstruction as-is?

TeaDrunk 5y ago

Scenario: A policeman is performing brutality on someone while multiple peers observe. Those peers approach anyone recording, such that it forces anyone recording to traverse further and further away. (And if those people stand their ground, cops are now able to arrest them for being within 8 feet.) What then?

sokoloff 5y ago
The person who is the subject of a contact may film that contact without an 8’ buffer. If I’m filming officer A from 10’ away and officer B comes to make contact with me, it does not appear that I’m obligated to stay 8’ from officer B not to stop filming that contact.

avs733 5y ago

> seems reasonable which is exactly the goal...something that seems reasonable while enabling abuse.

worik 5y ago

Reading between the lines the purpose of the bill is not to make police jobs easier by keeping clear space around them. IMO the purpose is to remind the plebeians exactly what's what and what their position in society is.

stonogo 5y ago

This is on the front page of Reddit as I type this: https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/thuy4h/the_cop_literally_put_that_mans_hand_on_the_stick/ https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/thuy4h/the_cop_li... Looking at this video, is the filming person in the car more than eight feet away from all of the involved police at all times? Because there are cops coming and going, and if one of them approached the car, the filming person would be compelled to either stop recording or get out the other side of the car. Laws like this are built for abuse. On the face of it, the law is reasonable, if mildly pointless. In practice, it relies on a very specific distance being maintained at all times, even if one of the cops decides to approach the cameraman, and relies on the police to estimate that eight feet in good faith. This is going to lead to a lot of arrests and a lot of dismissed charges, but the net result will be a general chilling effect on recording police, because there are just too many things that can go wrong and run you afoul of this law.