3 ms·
Note that this makes it impossible to film a police officer while they are confronting you.
by jyounker 5y ago
Note that this makes it impossible to film a police officer while they are confronting you.
- oh_sigh 5y agoIt'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 agoYeah, 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 agoThat is statement is going to be used quite often by cops.
- Brian_K_White 5y agoThe 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 agoSo 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?
- Brian_K_White 5y agoI'm not following the logic of this question. The law shouldn't exist because it doesn't express a problem and a solution to that problem that holds water. All it does is gives cops something they can say to people to get something they don't actually have a right to. They don't actually have a right to conduct misdeeds in private, but with this on the books, they can confuse and intimidate most people into doing what they want in the heat of the moment, and by the time everyone goes home and googles later, the damage has already been done. The recording was not made and you aren't likely to ever be in the same situation again.
- oh_sigh 5y agoBad officers can already confuse and mislead. How will this law change anything? It won't. Obstruction of justice already exists, and it is merely a standard instead of a law for how close someone can be to a cop performing an arrest. I really can't understand the opposition to this law. All I see is "cop = bad" logic.
- Brian_K_White 5y agoExactly. Obstruction of justice and interfering with performance of duties etc already exist. The opposition is that there is no justification for it. It doesn't express problem that survives scrutiny, and doesn't express a solution to a problem that survives scrutiny. What it does do is give power to people that don't need it, for a reason that doesn't wash. Only a bad cop even wants this. A good cop understands that their annoyance at bystanders witnessing them is not justification for trying to remove witnesses. Yes they can be annoying and interfering, and dealing with that is part of the job of being a professional officer with any inyegrity. Only a bad cop thinks their life should be easier at the expense of transparency and accountability. Only a bad cop is willing to accept the benefits of a chilling effect and ignore it's fundamental invalidity and dishonesty. A good cop is willing to use existing means (since they do exist) to deal with actual interference. If a bystander is actually a problem, a good cop has no problem simply classifying them as a problem, dealing with it (arrest them) and defend that action later, because their action was justified and they can say it with a straight face to a room full of people who are not their friends. All I see is "cop!=bad" logic. Just as dumb.
- jyounker 5y agoI take back what I said. It doesn't actually address my concern. All the officer has to say is that your filming was interfering with their actions, and then they'll slap that charge on you and confiscate your phone, possibly combining with resisting arrest. Also, the worse the officer's transgression is, the more likely that your phone will be "accidentally damaged". Even if the officer's claim is bullshit, the cost of defending against their bullshit is going to be infeasible for many.