4 ms·

While 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 ago
  That'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 ago
  There'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 ago
  Then make a law requiring people to stay out of proximity to the action. Don't make a law against recording police.
weberer 4y ago
Under which amendment?
- feet 4y ago
  The first... It covers journalism and reporting
  - eesmith 4y ago
    For more details, https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/first-amendment-center/topics/freedom-of-the-press/photography-first-amendment/ https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/first-amendment-center... . This is probably the most specific: > Photographing or more commonly videotaping police activity is one of the most contentious areas of photographer/videographer rights. When it comes to filming police activity, the federal courts are not in agreement as to whether there is even a right to do it. In a case about prisoner punishment, the U.S. Supreme Court said, “For a constitutional right to be clearly established, its contours must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right … in the light of pre-existing law the unlawfulness must be apparent.” Hope v. Pelzer (2002) > Two U.S. Circuit courts, the 1st and the 11th, say that there is a right to photograph/videotape police activity. The 9th Circuit provides some protection if police activity is considered a “matter of public interest.” Courts in the 3rd, 4th and 5th Circuits have said that the right to videotape the police has not conclusively been established. Courts in the remaining circuits have not ruled directly on the issue. AZ is in the 9th circuit: > In its 1995 opinion in Fordyce v. City of Seattle, the 9th Circuit stated that there is a First Amendment right to “film matters of public interest.” ... > The question of whether a person has the right to photograph or videotape police activities in the 9th Circuit has not been directly addressed and, thus, has not been fully answered.
    - feet 4y ago
      >For a constitutional right to be clearly established, its contours must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right I always thought that reporting on the government was the entire literal point of the first amendment covering journalism and reporting

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 ago
That'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 ago
There'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 ago
Then make a law requiring people to stay out of proximity to the action. Don't make a law against recording police.

weberer 4y ago

Under which amendment?

feet 4y ago
The first... It covers journalism and reporting
- eesmith 4y ago
  For more details, https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/first-amendment-center/topics/freedom-of-the-press/photography-first-amendment/ https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/first-amendment-center... . This is probably the most specific: > Photographing or more commonly videotaping police activity is one of the most contentious areas of photographer/videographer rights. When it comes to filming police activity, the federal courts are not in agreement as to whether there is even a right to do it. In a case about prisoner punishment, the U.S. Supreme Court said, “For a constitutional right to be clearly established, its contours must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right … in the light of pre-existing law the unlawfulness must be apparent.” Hope v. Pelzer (2002) > Two U.S. Circuit courts, the 1st and the 11th, say that there is a right to photograph/videotape police activity. The 9th Circuit provides some protection if police activity is considered a “matter of public interest.” Courts in the 3rd, 4th and 5th Circuits have said that the right to videotape the police has not conclusively been established. Courts in the remaining circuits have not ruled directly on the issue. AZ is in the 9th circuit: > In its 1995 opinion in Fordyce v. City of Seattle, the 9th Circuit stated that there is a First Amendment right to “film matters of public interest.” ... > The question of whether a person has the right to photograph or videotape police activities in the 9th Circuit has not been directly addressed and, thus, has not been fully answered.
  - feet 4y ago
    >For a constitutional right to be clearly established, its contours must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right I always thought that reporting on the government was the entire literal point of the first amendment covering journalism and reporting