6 ms·
Arizona passes law criminalizing recording of police (within 8 ft)
- spacemanmatt 4y agoAtrocious. Which party dominates Arizona government?
- weberer 4y agoBoth houses are split about 50-50
- spacemanmatt 4y agoballotpedia says you're wrong: "The Republican Party controls the governorship and both chambers of the state legislature."
- weberer 4y agoWhat's the split?
- spacemanmatt 4y agoI don't know, but a Republican majority means the split doesn't matter since they vote en bloc almost all the time now.
- spacemanmatt 4y agoDVs can bite down. Repubs own this.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 4y agoThis law will be abused by officers and abused hard. Also, how long before this gets picked up by other states?
- amelius 4y ago> This law will be abused by officers and abused hard. How, if they are recorded from further away?
- contrabandcat 4y agoHow far away was the Floyd recording?
- thebooktocome 4y agoFive, ten feet.
- contrabandcat 4y agoHow would you envision this abused (worse than what we have now?)? Far as I look at it, codifies where you CAN be. Presently, you couldn’t get that close up for an arrest for a variety of reasons in practice. Seeing as I, a mere coder, don’t want people “over my shoulder” it is only reasonable and fair for a similar affordance.
- dementiapatien 4y agoI'll ask the opposite, how could you NOT see this being abused? As YouTube shows, there are plenty of police officers who hate when bystanders film, and retaliate at every chance. Now all they have to do is run up on you and arrest you for being within a 8 foot proximity? They are going to love it.
- Tuna-Fish 4y agoThe police officer is also capable of moving. If I'm filming 20 feet away, he only has to take a few steps and suddenly I'm violating the law and he can arrest me.
- dkersten 4y agoThere are plenty of cases where filming a police officer was used to show that the police officer was breaking the law and not the citizen. This includes some of the high profile cases where police brutality killed innocent people. If you are out in a position of power, you shouldn’t have any expectation of privacy, especially when there’s a history of that power being abused.
- sharemywin 4y agoNot the way I would fix police brutality cases.
- shapefrog 4y agoMaking it illegal to film and report police brutality cases should see a signicant reduction in the number of police brutality cases (being reported).
- nxm 4y agoThis law doesn’t make it illegal. It says keep your distance and not interfere which in many cases makes the situation worse
- greyface- 4y agohttps://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/HB2319S.pdf https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/HB2319S.pdf
- excerionsforte 4y agoThis will be abused by cops against first amendment auditors especially. This will also be challenged in and hopefully force the courts to answer the legality of recording law enforcement in any capacity instead of leaving it in limbo like they have now.
- ricardoplouis 4y agoIf a foreign country had a rogue police force that killed citizens and then passed a law criminalizing the recording of the police we'd easily call them a dictatorship.
- pif 4y ago
- macintux 4y agoThere are caveats. Laws that make it harder to vote a party out of power, e.g.
- hammock 4y agoYou are being downvoted and your comment is correct. Functioning democracy is distinct from mob rule. This notion is one of the reasons why rights such as the right to a public trial without unnecessary delay, the right to a lawyer, the right to an impartial jury, and the right to know who your accusers are and the nature of the charges and evidence against you were codified in the Constitution
- Beltiras 4y agoYou lost all those rights under the Patriot Act.
- ricardoplouis 4y agoYou make a weak case for representative democracies while ignoring the police killing part. Where does that fit in?
- pif 4y agoI'm just stating the obvious: this law has nothing to do with dictatorship.
- 4y ago
- Overtonwindow 4y agoThis is purely a Pyrrhic victory. The courts have already ruled that filming police is protected by the First Amendment. It doesn’t matter whether you’re 8 feet or 20 feet. You can film them. Someone will challenge this, they will get arrested, it will go to court, and a judge will slap it down. This really is overblown.
- pixl97 4y agoLol, ya, you have a lot more trust in our court system than you should.
- Overtonwindow 4y agoI have more faith in the court system than our politicians. In my humble opinion, politicians hate making hard decisions, so they hope that the courts will intervene.
- jansen555 4y ago
- akomtu 4y agoDepends on the judge and on the political environment. There are many laws out there that boldly violate the bill of rights, yet breaking those laws has been a felony for decades.
- Overtonwindow 4y agoThis is radical forgive me, but I think if there are laws out there that boldly violate the Bill of Rights, then it’s our duty to challenge those laws. I really hope someone challenges Arizona’s law, and continues to film police. Unfortunately the vast majority of people cannot afford to be arrested, to fight their arrest, and prevail in court.
- spacemanmatt 4y ago> if there are laws out there that boldly violate the Bill of Rights, then it’s our duty to challenge those laws. Yes, but I don't see your attitude meshing well with people who actually do the challenging in practice. They are wizened by their struggles and those of us on the sidelines should pay attention to their reality.
- jyriand 4y agoI wonder if you could use an autonomous drone that will always keep a distance and film the interaction.
- nxm 4y agoDrones are not allowed by law in most public places
- formerkrogemp 4y agoThat doesn't stop many drone operators from flying them in parks, on mountains, or over residential areas for kicks. Law enforcement routinely fly drones over entire cities to obtain location and surveillance data without a warrant. I don't see your point.
- StopHammoTime 4y agoThis definitely would not pass constitutional muster. It's been clearly established that if it's happening in public, it's fair game. Furthermore, I'd imagine the onus would be on the Police to affirmatively prove that the person is interfering - they couldn't just say "you're interfering with me, turn it off". This is a horrible law.
- pif 4y agoFrom the article: > Violators could face a misdemeanor, but only after being verbally warned and continuing to record anyway. > Exceptions were made for people at the center of an interaction with police... They are working, you are not involved, they ask you to not interfere, you cannot be bothered to move a couple yards, and the constitution should worry about you? > This is a horrible law. No, this is just prejudice on your side or lack of reading comprehension... or of reading at all.
- wahnfrieden 4y agowhat a bootlicking understanding of cop behavior
- peeters 4y ago>> Violators could face a misdemeanor, but only after being verbally warned and continuing to record anyway. > Exceptions were made for people at the center of an interaction with police... > They are working, you are not involved, they ask you to not interfere, you cannot be bothered to move a couple yards, and the constitution should worry about you? Everything you just detailed has just as much relevance to people who are not recording. Why do you think the law called out recording within that radius?
- Miner49er 4y agoIt's clearly in violation of the 1st amendment.
- ahiknsr 4y ago> and the constitution should worry about you? Yes.
- Spacemolte 4y agoI cannot help to wonder how long it will take for the following scenario to play out. 1. Someone films the police from a distance. 2. The police moves closer, and either gets too close and arrests you. or.. 3. You start moving away from them, and they yell stop, and arrest you for trying to run from them, or for not complying. I hope you guys fix whatever is going on in your country.
- soco 4y agoTo arrest you they have to move closer anyway, so, this complicated scenario is not even needed.
- pif 4y agoYou forgot 4: you keep filming while they are far enough and stop when they get close to you. This way, you comply with the law, and you have enough material for court in case of misbehavior.
- martin_a 4y agoSounds like you need multiple cameras, because misbehaviour will probably only happen once the cameras are off.
- pif 4y agoYeah, so what? You filmed the beginning, you filmed the police asking you to stop: which judge will ever trust them when they'll describe how you slipped on a banana peel?
- black_puppydog 4y agoehm... a few years I'd have laughed and said you're right. but today...
- ceejayoz 4y agoCops already pull the “whoops my body cam stopped working” trick. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2018/06/28/the-ongoing-problem-of-conveniently-malfunctioning-police-cameras/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2018/06/28/...
- insickness 4y agoWhile police can enforce a perimeter in the course of police work, specifically outlawing recording will be/should be struck down as unconstitutional.
- pif 4y ago> specifically outlawing recording That is not the point of the law. The point is to stay out of the immediate proximity to the action.
- Teever 4y agoThat's an interpretation of the law. Another, and more likely interpretation of the law is that the purpose is to prevent people from recording abusive police interactions to stymie reforms of law enforcement practices and to prevent victims of police abuses from seeking justice.
- curiousllama 4y agoThere's a reason it's the "legal code" It doesn't care what "the point of the law" is. It cares what's written. It's already illegal to interfere. Now there's a magic line in which you can't get too close regardless of if you interfere or not. What if my 14 YO son wanders off, and is now being questioned? I have to choose between engaging with the police officer ("my son is a minor, and you don't have permission to question him") and recording the interaction. What if my friend and I are stopped, and they are getting questioned? I now have to turn away, and potentially escalate the situation by looking like I'm running, to record the interaction. What if the police officer unexpectedly pulls a gun on my husband, and the officer is right beneath my unenclosed porch? I have to leave my house to reposition myself so I can record, potentially missing the critical 30 seconds.
- insickness 4y agoThen make a law requiring people to stay out of proximity to the action. Don't make a law against recording police.
- weberer 4y ago
- jaywalk 4y agoIt's a shame that it will probably take many people getting caught up in this law over multiple years before it's thrown out as blatantly unconstitutional.
- hammock 4y agoGood first step. Now can we criminalize being within 8ft of the US Capitol?
- nathanaldensr 4y agoI'm curious what it is you're actually trying to say.
- gigatexal 4y agoOne step closer to a failed police state. Yay.
- spaetzleesser 4y agoThis is a stupid law. If the concern is that people may interfere with police work then it shouldn’t matter if they are recording or not.
- nxm 4y agoHow would programmers like it if folks had a camera in your face a foot away from you while you’re doing you’re coding away. This is a good law. You can still film - bit don’t interfere with the cop’s job which is hard enough already
- SamoyedFurFluff 4y agoThere are already laws about not interfering with an active crime scene. This is an additional law that says that interference is simply standing with a phone within 8 feet, which I find to be lol nah. Besides, programmers already have cameras less than a foot away when coding. Productivity trackers aren’t illegal!
- spacemanmatt 4y agoCool, so I can film the cops closer than 8 feet if I'm just auditing their productivity? Thanks, internet lawyer!
- kyrra 4y agoI don't think this law was even needed given the Fraiser v Evans case that SCOTUS refused to hear. https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/frasier-v-evans/ https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/frasier-v-evans... As it stands right now, if you film the cops, they can take your device, delete the video, and be protected by qualified immunity.
- juanani 4y ago
- senthil_rajasek 4y agoThis would be a "crime" in AZ now? https://www.npr.org/2021/06/11/1005601724/darnella-frazier-teen-who-filmed-george-floyds-murder-wins-pulitzer-prize-citati https://www.npr.org/2021/06/11/1005601724/darnella-frazier-t...
- elif 4y agoSo technically now police have authority to escalate any encounter with a Tesla driver into an arrest, since they can't stop the car from recording?
- was_a_dev 4y agoLand of the free
- jjtheblunt 4y agothis won't stand : just everyone wearing an Axon3 bodycam would violate the law but not be detectable without undue search.