17 ms·

Arizona makes it illegal for bystanders to record cops at close range

359 points by arunbahl 4y ago

celdon25 4y ago
I was held at gunpoint after getting too close with my camera (which wasn't that close actually, much more than 8 feet, more like 30-50) while recording an arrest in Mesa, AZ. I was the one who actually called the cops on the dudes that were threatening a guy with a bat. Would prefer to leave it at that as it wasn't a good experience.
timcavel 4y ago
greyface- 4y ago
Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32025858 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32025858
googlryas 4y ago
> The new Arizona law requires any bystanders recording police activity in the state to stand at a minimum of 8 feet away from the action. If bystanders move closer after police have warned them to back off, they risk being charged with a misdemeanor and incurring fines of up to $500, jail time of up to 30 days, or probation of up to a year What exactly is wrong with this? Previously, couldn't cops just claim you were interfering regardless of distance or number of warnings?
- colechristensen 4y ago
  It also seems like a protection for recording the police. “The law says I can record you if I’m more than 8 feet away” No more could police argue interference because there’s an explicit definition now of what is too close.
  - jvanderbot 4y ago
    Obvious protection. Exception proves the rule.
  - WesternWind 4y ago
    quoting the law, "THIS SECTION DOES NOT ESTABLISH A RIGHT OR AUTHORIZE ANY PERSON TO MAKE A VIDEO RECORDING OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY."
    - throwawaymaths 4y ago
      Right this is the problem. If it said the opposite, it would be a FANTASTIC law.
    - colechristensen 4y ago
      But you already have the right to record which has been upheld in court. Now in AZ when faced with a court argument that you were too close to the action you can point to a law that defines too close.
      - kevinsundar 4y ago
        You can't really read laws in the negative. Laws only mean what they say. You can still for example "interfere" and be more than 8 feet away and pointing to this law won't help you.
        WesternWind 4y ago
        You are largely right, though one can apply the canons of construction to understanding a law's text, which sometimes can sometimes lead to inferences. https://www.law.uh.edu/faculty/adjunct/dstevenson/2018Spring/CANONS%20OF%20CONSTRUCTION.pdf https://www.law.uh.edu/faculty/adjunct/dstevenson/2018Spring...
  - bergenty 4y ago
    But then the cop runs towards you and now everyone filming can potentially end up in prison.
- mbrameld 4y ago
  > Previously, couldn't cops just claim you were interfering regardless of distance or number of warnings? They can still do that, too. Interfering is still illegal no matter what you're doing or where you are when you do it. Simply filming is protected by the first amendment, so unless you were doing something else you had a defense to say you weren't interfering. Now that defense is gone. It doesn't matter whether you're actually interfering or not, now you can be arrested and charged for simply filming.
  - qwerpy 4y ago
    - shepardrtc 4y ago
      > I think this is a good, common sense law That will absolutely be abused by police with no repercussions. They just have to walk up to you and then you're violating the law.
    - dwater 4y ago
      Can you link to some examples, because I have not seen any videos like that.
    - deathanatos 4y ago
      Then, as a cop, you arrest them. A court of law will see right through crap like that, and you'll be exonerated for recording the officer and convicted for pressing up against the officer. What we don't want, here, is someone who isn't doing that jailed nonetheless, because they were 7.5ft away, recording police brutality, and the police didn't want that. (Edit: IANAL, ofc.)
      - bragr 4y ago
        That's before you even get into "I think I'm 10ft away, but the cop says I'm 7ft so now I'm going to jail and will always have this arrest on my record even if charges are dropped"
- badlucklottery 4y ago
  >What exactly is wrong with this? It's a pretty obvious way to criminalize citizens documenting police. The police already had the law on their side to deal with people actually interfering in their duties. Now merely documenting them in a way they determine is unsafe is a crime. >Previously, couldn't cops just claim you were interfering regardless of distance or number of warnings? They still can.
- throwawaymaths 4y ago
  Yeah I am huge on recording cops, but a minimum distance of 8 feet does not bother me as long as it doesn't slippery slope into more. Slippery slope arguments are usually invalid, unless they involve government justifying and expanding powers, we have plenty of historical evidence for that.
- patmcc 4y ago
  > What exactly is wrong with this? Previously, couldn't cops just claim you were interfering regardless of distance or number of warnings? What's wrong is this - I'm filming some police brutality from the legally mandated 8 feet away. Then a cop moves 1 foot closer to me. Ooops, look like my camera/phone is confiscated and I'm under arrest.
  - 14 4y ago
    That is why you should have it live streamed so even if they confiscate/ accidentally smash your phone it is too late.
    - patmcc 4y ago
      I don't disagree, but I think in this scenario you'll end up with some illegal activity recorded/uploaded but the very illegal activity is yet to come. Like if Darnella Frazier's video stops before George Floyd dies, it's not nearly as effective as evidence.
    - freen 4y ago
      How idealistic. Why don’t you try it out and see how well that works out for you? Very, very few people of privilege know what having an adversarial state is truly like.
    - smt88 4y ago
      The purpose of the bill is to scare people and punish them for filming. The fear of a smashed phone or an arrest is enough to stop many people from filming.
- Rapzid 4y ago
  Yeah, 8 feet is pretty dang close to police action. I would consider that "close range".
  - epakai 4y ago
    For many situations, yes. In a crowd, not really. In something like a concert crowd, clubbing, etc. next to impossible.
- bergenty 4y ago
  They’re just going to have one cop be the “perimeter” 50 ft away.
  - Rapzid 4y ago
- jksmith 4y ago
  What if you were on a bus, sitting across from a cop bashing somebody's face in? Ok, back up two rows to be able to video. Check! What if you have to get out of your car, but leave your camera running and the cop decides to drag you down and put a knee on your neck within 8 feet?
  - nvrspyx 4y ago
    For the second example, you wouldn't be a bystander, so I don't think it would apply. If you were the passenger though, I guess it would.
    - jksmith 4y ago
      So the law reads that this only applies to bystanders? Including spouses/family?
      - rndgermandude 4y ago
        It does not apply to the person who is subject to police action. It does furthermore not apply to other occupants of a vehicle (as long as they do not interfere otherwise). And it allows to make videos in a "closed structure" on private property from closer than 8ft unless the person is interfering otherwise or the entire area is deemed unsafe. And it's only a misdemeanor after the police already warned you and you continue to take video from closer than 8ft. https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/HB2319S.pdf https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/HB2319S.pdf
  - drewcoo 4y ago
    And if you can't move, ask the cop to continue the beating farther away so you can film.
    - the_only_law 4y ago
      See, we can solve problem with civility!
- wonderwonder 4y ago
  In 10 seconds the cops are going to have brainstormed having an officer walk around asking people to move back from them, driving bystanders further and further from whatever is taking place. They will also indiscriminately arrest people now knowing they can just charge them with violating this law. If the cop says you were 6ft away and you say you were 8, who are they going to believe? Does it really matter, you are already going to jail and your phone was unfortunately damaged in the arrest which you were also resisting. Just read up on who the bill sponsor is and you will understand his intent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kavanagh_(Arizona_politician) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kavanagh_(Arizona_politic...
  - nonrandomstring 4y ago
    > If the cop says you were 6ft away and you say you were 8, who are they going to believe? The video footage. Image analysis along with metadata is sufficient to determine the viewpoint. > Does it really matter, you are already going to jail and your phone was unfortunately damaged in the arrest which you were also resisting. 5G, and perhaps within a few years the new civilian internet satellites, will evolve this situation. Constantly uploading/syncing video and images to secure remote storage is something war journalists have long sought. By the time someone with a gun threatens you to delete things you can go through the theatre of complying, or they can even destroy your device, but it's too late for them.
    - nonrandomstring 4y ago
      I am wondering whether down-voters disagree or don't understand how forensic video analysis can accurately pinpoint the positions of objects from perspective when the camera and lens model are known?
      - csydas 4y ago
        It's not about the technical details, it's about the fact that before you'd ever have a chance to present such an argument, you already are liable for a fine And jailtime (30 days). It doesn't matter what might end up happening later, the upfront cost of recording is now very real and there is a chance to get starved out of money to even try to take such an item to court. The tech might be undeniable, but it doesn't matter if there is a buffer in front of the system that would accept such tech as evidence, and said buffer could delay your chance to succeed by months if not years. It doesn't really matter how good the tech is if the system where it would help can stall out the situation beyond your means to live.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
hooloovoo_zoo 4y ago
What's the policy on 8' selfie sticks?
- formerkrogemp 4y ago
  Officer charges you with assault and resisting arrest. New supreme court rulings abrogate your exercising Miranda rights and limit liability for police and federal agents, even if they enter your home without a warrant and beat you.
- visarga 4y ago
  What about 15x zoom on iPhones?
  - actually_a_dog 4y ago
    15x is digital zoom, which is useless. The iPhone 13 only has 3x optical zoom. Previous iPhones only have 2x optical zoom.
hulahoof 4y ago
Seems like a great way to prevent recordings by having one officer move towards onlookers and force them an arbitrary distance away
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- Fargoan 4y ago
  This is exactly what's going to happen.
- ifelsethenyeah 4y ago
  "Nothing to see here. Please disperse. And stop recording."
- ravenstine 4y ago
  Which they can and often do already...
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    The fact that the police currently abuse their power isn't a good reason to give them additional legal latitude to do so.
    - bonestamp2 4y ago
      I don't think it was meant as justification, but rather as proof that it will definitely continue to happen.
      - woodruffw 4y ago
        I agree that it'll continue to happen, but I don't think we should allow that to desensitize us to attempts to further criminalize basic civic behavior.
        4y ago
roamerz 4y ago
I was going to reflect on how a gun that resembled an iphone might affect this conversation. I did a quick search and saw that they are easily available. So now as a Police Officer when someone takes a phone out of there pocket you have to immediately assess the risk. Am I going to be shot or recorded? Being in law enforcement is getting more dangerous by the day. Damn.
- carbadtraingood 4y ago
  This is a laughable concern. There's no reason to think there will be a rash of guns-shaped-like-iphones being a thing. Being a cop is less dangerous than, for instance, being a pizza delivery driver.
- jrajav 4y ago
  It is more dangerous to be a landscaper, a fisherman, or a truck driver in America, than to be a police officer. Not a joke. Being a police officer is one of the safer professions you can do outdoors or on the road. The risk of the job is absolutely normal and zero excuse for any concessions of accountability.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- RajT88 4y ago
  How many times have these covert phone-guns been used in crimes? They are unlikely to be much use for that. Self defense or covert assassination, neither are at all common gun violence. Arguably a poor tool for much else. QED most of these phone-gun owners are likely living in some fantasy world. See: "Sword Guys" archetype.
- NavinF 4y ago
  Genuinely can’t tell if this is satire
anonu 4y ago
8 feet seems reasonable... I don't think you'd be able to capture much action any closer to be honest. Then again, laws like this are a slippery slope.
- aeternum 4y ago
  Can you legally record a cop stopping you from your own dashcam now? Probably not, it's within 8ft.
  - jwilk 4y ago
    You are not a "bystandander" in that situation, are you?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
rexpop 4y ago
Top 25 Most Dangerous Professions (Fatal Injury Rate per 100,000 Workers) 1 Logging workers (70) 2 Aircraft pilots and flight engineers (60) 3 Roofers (50) 4 Construction helpers (40) 5 Crossing guards (38) 6 Garbage collectors (31) 7 Farming supervisors (29) 8 Delivery drivers (28) 9 Ironworkers (27) 10 Farmers (25) 11 Cement masons (22) 12 Agricultural workers (21) 13 Construction supervisors (20) 14 Highway maintenance workers (19) 15 Grounds maintenance workers (18) 16 Mining machine operators (18) 17 Supervisors of mechanics (16) 18 Power lineworkers (15) 19 Construction workers (14) 20 Construction equipment operators (14) 21 Maintenance workers (13) 22 Heavy vehicle mechanics (13) 23 Crane operators (13) 24 Landscaping supervisors (12) 25 Police officers (12) For what it's worth, most of us have little education on the subject of policing. We're taught a lot about how a biological cell operates, how to structure English grammar, and who fought the War of 1812, but absolutely nothing about how police function, when policing was invented, by whom, where, or to what end[0]. We go through our adult lives believing about police what we absorbed from children's cartoons and, later, TV procedurals or action movies. This leaves us with an impression of the field that is naive, if not outright fantasy. 0. https://www.versobooks.com/books/3906-the-end-of-policing https://www.versobooks.com/books/3906-the-end-of-policing
- ifelsethenyeah 4y ago
  I'm not sure where you sourced your information. Taxi drivers are around as dangerous as loggers. Petro-chem (oil rigs) are also extremely dangerous.
- bigDinosaur 4y ago
  Police tend to be assaulted at far higher rates than any kind of fatal injury rate, and I'm not sure I'd say it's 'safe' just because it's not death. Do you have any statistics that put a figure on the actual amount of psychopathic/drug fuelled/antisocial behaviour directed specifically at police? I'd be surprised if Airline pilots were assaulted at the same level as police, for example.
  - kelseyfrog 4y ago
    cool, do the same list but for assault rates
wonderwonder 4y ago
Most insane part of this article was the below quote from the bill sponsor: "Kavanagh said it is important to leave this buffer for police to protect law enforcement from being assaulted by unruly bystanders. He said “there’s no reason” to come closer and predicted tragic outcomes for those who do, saying, “Such an approach is unreasonable, unnecessary, and unsafe, and should be made illegal." He is just happily excusing cops visiting "tragic outcomes" on people who get closer than 8 feet to cops. The lengths that people will go to too justify police just killing people is insane. How about we don't allow police to just wantonly murder or beat whoever they want? This same guy is an ex cop and "sponsored legislation that would prohibit oversight boards of police departments unless those boards were two-thirds sworn police officers" After the 2020 election he also said: ""Everybody shouldn’t be voting...Quantity is important, but we have to look at the quality of votes, as well." Seems like a really great guy that very much deserves to be in power /s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kavanagh_(Arizona_politician) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kavanagh_(Arizona_politic...
- beebmam 4y ago
  If there's anything that would build public trust back in police institutions, it would be politically-empowered independent citizen's oversight boards. It is such a shame that most cities in the US don't have these. I'd like the police to be a (mostly) transparent organization that is concerned with the health of our society and key partners to all upstanding citizens. Citizen oversight boards is one path to making that happen.
  - SpikeDad 4y ago
    This is exactly the solution. I've long proposed civilian review boards assembled like juries - random citizens called in to judge specific cases of police actions. Theses juries would have the ability to rule on the culpability of the officers, select penalties and their deliberations would be secret and final. Police that know their actions would be reviewed and their chiefs and administrators would have no ability to save them would certainly reduce the amount of police illegality.
  - wonderwonder 4y ago
majormajor 4y ago
The Ars headline is one of the few for this story that I've seen that has specified "for bystanders" vs making it sound like it was also illegal for the person involved (e.g. someone pulled over in a car or someone else in the car with them) to record. I probably wouldn't support the law - especially if the "cop walks towards someone recording" bit counts as "being within 8 feet of the activity" - but let's report things as written.
plaguepilled 4y ago
I'm not American so maybe there's some Very Cool Constitutional Reason this isn't challenged, but is this something people can class action the state over? Seems like the kind of thing that would get steamrolled in court
- thaumasiotes 4y ago
  Facial challenges to a law are rare and courts don't like them. A normal challenge would have to come from someone who had had the law enforced against them. Give it time.
- smt88 4y ago
  It will be steamrolled in court until it reaches the radical, ultra-conservative Supreme Court who will say that the Constitution doesn't mention cameras and has no opinion about filming, at which point the law will stand.
  - plaguepilled 4y ago
    Frustrating, but that makes sense. What's the mechanism to lawfully replace the current Supreme Court with normal people?
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - thfuran 4y ago
      Wait until they die. Strictly speaking, there is a legal mechanism to remove them, but it basically wouldn't happen short of them being a serial killer. It requires the house of representatives to pass articles of impeachment by majority vote, then the Senate to hold a trial presided over by the chief justice of the supreme Court, at which a supermajority vote would lead to removal from office.
    - smt88 4y ago
      The legal mechanism to fix all of this is to vote out the fascists. It's going to take a while. I am hopeful because this country survived McCarthyism, the Vietnam War, and other authoritarian nightmares.
grecy 4y ago
The slippery slope keeps getting steeper and steeper... they continue to pass new laws to make the person recording a criminal act into a criminal, but do nothing against the person committing the criminal act in the first place that is on film! See Ag-Gag laws: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ag-gag https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ag-gag
ifelsethenyeah 4y ago
So, what does "close" mean? 1000 ft with a telescope? I can understand not interfering with the immediate official duties, but this seems like it will be overturned on 1a grounds.
- dawnerd 4y ago
  Article says a minimum of 8 feet away.
Thorentis 4y ago
If I was cop, I would certainly want to know that there is a physical boundary in law that bystanders cannot cross. For my own safety, and for theirs. I see nothing unreasonable about not allowing people to cross this boundary. The law does not prevent recording. It says you cannot record closer than 8ft. Why would somebody need to get closer than 8ft to an officer doing their job, when you have no involvement in the situation at hand? Adding more people to the situation simply increases the stress of all involved.
- knodi123 4y ago
  Does this law contain a provision that prevents the cops from moving closer to civilians? If I was a bystander, I'd certainly want to know that a cop wasn't allowed to take two steps towards me, declare that I am now within the 8 ft barrier, and am now subject to assault and arrest unless I delete the recording. Don't make laws unless you've thoroughly thought about how they can be abused by bad actors.
  - SCLeo 4y ago
    > The new Arizona law requires any bystanders recording police activity in the state to stand at a minimum of 8 feet away from the action. If bystanders move closer after police have warned them to back off, they risk being charged with a misdemeanor and incurring fines of up to $500, jail time of up to 30 days, or probation of up to a year. I have not read the law myself, but if the summary is accurate, it seems to suggest police moving towards the bystander does not count.
    - bonestamp2 4y ago
      I don't see anything that addresses the potential problem of the officer moving closer.
      - mlyle 4y ago
        Read it, then: https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/HB2319S.pdf https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/HB2319S.pdf You can't record as a bystander within 8' of law enforcement activity, defined as "QUESTIONING A SUSPICIOUS PERSON. 33 2. CONDUCTING AN ARREST, ISSUING A SUMMONS OR ENFORCING THE LAW. 34 3. HANDLING AN EMOTIONALLY DISTURBED OR DISORDERLY PERSON WHO IS 35 EXHIBITING ABNORMAL BEHAVIOR. " If you're the subject of activity, e.g. they deem you as a suspicious person and move towards you, you may record.
Terry_Roll 4y ago
I think it fair to say the US cops are rather paranoid and some prone to roid rage, so this is sensible, last thing you want is to be on your hands and knees dealing with a suspect whilst worrying about members of the public who might be to close to the action for their citizen policing media content. Most if not all of the camera footage of George Floyd being murdered was taken from over 8ft away!
jollybean 4y ago
8ft should be the required distance for everything unless the person is involved. Police doing an arrest have every reasonable reason to ask people to 'stand back a bit' and 8ft seems about right. The moment there is some kind of interaction of consequence, the 'spot' becomes an issue of civic concern, conflict, violence etc.. Cops may have to draw weapons, fight, god knows what in order to do their jobs. You can watch/film or whatever from 8ft.
kevinpet 4y ago
I'm sure this state rep is a scumbag in general and all that, but what the law says is: * bystanders can't record within 8 ft of the police questioning a suspect, arresting someone, or dealing with a mental health case. * the person police are interacting with is exempt and can record unless that interfere with the police operations. I.e. no guarantee you can hold your phone while handcuffed. * the driver and passengers of a car pulled over are also explicitly exempt. I think the opposition to this is a knee jerk over reaction comes across as just ... not rooted in reality. If you insist on getting up in arms about Arizona's contempt for the first amendment, I encourage you to go burn a flag and dare them to arrest you for violating https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/03703.htm https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/03703.htm
- Justin_K 4y ago
  8 ft seems pretty reasonable... Not sure why people are upset over this. Police officers can't question and keep track of bystanders hanging over their shoulders. Am I missing something?
  - x86_64Ubuntu 4y ago
    Because interfering with police is already illegal, and the law only deals with RECORDING police officers which is kind of peculiar if the concern for safety was legitimate.
- rahimnathwani 4y ago
  You might be able to take a decent recording from 8 feet away, but: - there may be obstructions or bystanders closer to the incident, partially or fully blocking your view - you may only be able to see clearly from a limited range of angles, and they may all point off the sidewalk into the road, meaning you need to risk your life to get a usable shot
mellosouls 4y ago
I don't know what the answer is here but I have sympathy with police trying to do their job with hostile bystanders recording their every move and uploading to to YouTube in edited contextless hatchet jobs intended to ridicule or undermine. Of course there are bad cops where video has provided useful evidence of their behaviour but for ordinary professional police officers it must add a very unpleasant dimension to already stressful situations. I don't know the law at all but I would hope that any liberal enabling of filming is constrained by dissemination that identifies individuals without very good reason.
- Daishiman 4y ago
  How is recording hostile? If anything it's definitive proof that their job is being done accordingly or not. Of course, the reason this happens is because police in the US are just another group of organized thugs.
  - mellosouls 4y ago
    That was a prime example of the hostility.
    - Daishiman 4y ago
      Hostility is when police perform no-knock raids and end up killing innocent people, or shoot unarmed civilians, which happens pretty damn often in the US as seen by the death by cop statistics.
spoonjim 4y ago
This doesn't seem that unreasonable. You don't need to get closer than 8 feet to record police misconduct, and getting closer than 8 feet to an active arrest is definitely pretty goddamn close. The 8 foot perimeter seems perfectly reasonable.
ed_blackburn 4y ago
The notion of policing without consent feels so alien to me. As a UK citizen I used to take this for granted, but wonder if the social contract in the UK will be broken in favour of the US in the future. I hope not. I feel for the people of Arizona.
BiteCode_dev 4y ago
8ft is 2.4m, it's not that long, it's the lenght of a small car. With current modern resolutions and zooms, you can even read the name of cops on their plaque from that distance. I don't think it's going to prevent much recording. In fact, the recording are probably be of much more quality: instead of close ups that doesn't show much actions, we will see the a bigger context. Most useful videos are from at least 8 ft away. I understand the author of the law doesn't have a great background in the US and cops have terrible reputation in this country. So it's probable there is an abuse path I don't see here. But if I haven't been given that context, the law would not have seen excessive: in a law enforcement context, you don't want every body to park too close to the hot spot. Also, there is this annoying tendency of people with a camera to put it in your face, or to not mind their surrounding. Given an arrest can be tensed, 8ft sound like it make sense. What am I missing, as a French person not understanding all the weird american social details ?
- csydas 4y ago
  It's not so much the specific distance as the limitation and illegal "zone" that now exists around officers, a moving target for when you can suddenly ve performing something illegal that wasn't illegal a few centimeters ago. A cop leaning a bit or just shifting their weight is enough to make you a criminal. The main reason there is such concern over this is because the power and corruption in many police forces and a lack of accountability for misbehavior of police, combined with the silliness of such a concept of no recording zone that now surrounds officers. The issue isn't about how practical it is to record a police officer, it's that rather than address institutional corruption and misbehavior, there is a very vague law with ridiculous premises invented that gives police the ability to issue fines and arrests. Proof of misbehavior can be confiscated by a sudden movement by any police officer. It's a very strange power to give police officers.
  - Hnrobert42 4y ago
    If you are able to position yourself at a safe distance down to the centimeter, you probably also have the super power to move when the officer shifts weight. The easy solution is to post up at 15 feet and vigilantly adapt. If you are filming an intense arrest, I would hope you would maintain that sort of situational awareness anyway. I certainly understand your concerns about abuse of power. However, giving officers room to do their job is not “very strange” nor is the premise “ridiculous.” Indeed, moving bystanders back to a reasonable distance might reduce tension and the likelihood of misbehavior
gtvwill 4y ago
papito 4y ago
I hope that the strikedown of Miranda Rights will not be as much of a shock to people as Roe was. They are going to have to back-edit thousands of episodes of Law and Order.
- the_only_law 4y ago
  Funny because half these cops shows love glorifying illegal activity. Just make sure the villain of the episode is something really bad like a terrorist and violating their rights is cool and ok.
ETH_start 4y ago
It seems like a reasonable law.

359 points by arunbahl 4y ago

I was held at gunpoint after getting too close with my camera (which wasn't that close actually, much more than 8 feet, more like 30-50) while recording an arrest in Mesa, AZ. I was the one who actually called the cops on the dudes that were threatening a guy with a bat. Would prefer to leave it at that as it wasn't a good experience.

timcavel 4y ago

greyface- 4y ago

Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32025858 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32025858

googlryas 4y ago

> The new Arizona law requires any bystanders recording police activity in the state to stand at a minimum of 8 feet away from the action. If bystanders move closer after police have warned them to back off, they risk being charged with a misdemeanor and incurring fines of up to $500, jail time of up to 30 days, or probation of up to a year What exactly is wrong with this? Previously, couldn't cops just claim you were interfering regardless of distance or number of warnings?

colechristensen 4y ago
It also seems like a protection for recording the police. “The law says I can record you if I’m more than 8 feet away” No more could police argue interference because there’s an explicit definition now of what is too close.
- jvanderbot 4y ago
  Obvious protection. Exception proves the rule.
- WesternWind 4y ago
  quoting the law, "THIS SECTION DOES NOT ESTABLISH A RIGHT OR AUTHORIZE ANY PERSON TO MAKE A VIDEO RECORDING OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY."
  - throwawaymaths 4y ago
    Right this is the problem. If it said the opposite, it would be a FANTASTIC law.
  - colechristensen 4y ago
    But you already have the right to record which has been upheld in court. Now in AZ when faced with a court argument that you were too close to the action you can point to a law that defines too close.
    - kevinsundar 4y ago
      You can't really read laws in the negative. Laws only mean what they say. You can still for example "interfere" and be more than 8 feet away and pointing to this law won't help you.
      - WesternWind 4y ago
        You are largely right, though one can apply the canons of construction to understanding a law's text, which sometimes can sometimes lead to inferences. https://www.law.uh.edu/faculty/adjunct/dstevenson/2018Spring/CANONS%20OF%20CONSTRUCTION.pdf https://www.law.uh.edu/faculty/adjunct/dstevenson/2018Spring...
- bergenty 4y ago
  But then the cop runs towards you and now everyone filming can potentially end up in prison.
mbrameld 4y ago
> Previously, couldn't cops just claim you were interfering regardless of distance or number of warnings? They can still do that, too. Interfering is still illegal no matter what you're doing or where you are when you do it. Simply filming is protected by the first amendment, so unless you were doing something else you had a defense to say you weren't interfering. Now that defense is gone. It doesn't matter whether you're actually interfering or not, now you can be arrested and charged for simply filming.
- qwerpy 4y ago
  - shepardrtc 4y ago
    > I think this is a good, common sense law That will absolutely be abused by police with no repercussions. They just have to walk up to you and then you're violating the law.
  - dwater 4y ago
    Can you link to some examples, because I have not seen any videos like that.
  - deathanatos 4y ago
    Then, as a cop, you arrest them. A court of law will see right through crap like that, and you'll be exonerated for recording the officer and convicted for pressing up against the officer. What we don't want, here, is someone who isn't doing that jailed nonetheless, because they were 7.5ft away, recording police brutality, and the police didn't want that. (Edit: IANAL, ofc.)
    - bragr 4y ago
      That's before you even get into "I think I'm 10ft away, but the cop says I'm 7ft so now I'm going to jail and will always have this arrest on my record even if charges are dropped"
badlucklottery 4y ago
>What exactly is wrong with this? It's a pretty obvious way to criminalize citizens documenting police. The police already had the law on their side to deal with people actually interfering in their duties. Now merely documenting them in a way they determine is unsafe is a crime. >Previously, couldn't cops just claim you were interfering regardless of distance or number of warnings? They still can.
throwawaymaths 4y ago
Yeah I am huge on recording cops, but a minimum distance of 8 feet does not bother me as long as it doesn't slippery slope into more. Slippery slope arguments are usually invalid, unless they involve government justifying and expanding powers, we have plenty of historical evidence for that.
patmcc 4y ago
> What exactly is wrong with this? Previously, couldn't cops just claim you were interfering regardless of distance or number of warnings? What's wrong is this - I'm filming some police brutality from the legally mandated 8 feet away. Then a cop moves 1 foot closer to me. Ooops, look like my camera/phone is confiscated and I'm under arrest.
- 14 4y ago
  That is why you should have it live streamed so even if they confiscate/ accidentally smash your phone it is too late.
  - patmcc 4y ago
    I don't disagree, but I think in this scenario you'll end up with some illegal activity recorded/uploaded but the very illegal activity is yet to come. Like if Darnella Frazier's video stops before George Floyd dies, it's not nearly as effective as evidence.
  - freen 4y ago
    How idealistic. Why don’t you try it out and see how well that works out for you? Very, very few people of privilege know what having an adversarial state is truly like.
  - smt88 4y ago
    The purpose of the bill is to scare people and punish them for filming. The fear of a smashed phone or an arrest is enough to stop many people from filming.
Rapzid 4y ago
Yeah, 8 feet is pretty dang close to police action. I would consider that "close range".
- epakai 4y ago
  For many situations, yes. In a crowd, not really. In something like a concert crowd, clubbing, etc. next to impossible.
bergenty 4y ago
They’re just going to have one cop be the “perimeter” 50 ft away.
- Rapzid 4y ago
jksmith 4y ago
What if you were on a bus, sitting across from a cop bashing somebody's face in? Ok, back up two rows to be able to video. Check! What if you have to get out of your car, but leave your camera running and the cop decides to drag you down and put a knee on your neck within 8 feet?
- nvrspyx 4y ago
  For the second example, you wouldn't be a bystander, so I don't think it would apply. If you were the passenger though, I guess it would.
  - jksmith 4y ago
    So the law reads that this only applies to bystanders? Including spouses/family?
    - rndgermandude 4y ago
      It does not apply to the person who is subject to police action. It does furthermore not apply to other occupants of a vehicle (as long as they do not interfere otherwise). And it allows to make videos in a "closed structure" on private property from closer than 8ft unless the person is interfering otherwise or the entire area is deemed unsafe. And it's only a misdemeanor after the police already warned you and you continue to take video from closer than 8ft. https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/HB2319S.pdf https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/HB2319S.pdf
- drewcoo 4y ago
  And if you can't move, ask the cop to continue the beating farther away so you can film.
  - the_only_law 4y ago
    See, we can solve problem with civility!
wonderwonder 4y ago
In 10 seconds the cops are going to have brainstormed having an officer walk around asking people to move back from them, driving bystanders further and further from whatever is taking place. They will also indiscriminately arrest people now knowing they can just charge them with violating this law. If the cop says you were 6ft away and you say you were 8, who are they going to believe? Does it really matter, you are already going to jail and your phone was unfortunately damaged in the arrest which you were also resisting. Just read up on who the bill sponsor is and you will understand his intent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kavanagh_(Arizona_politician) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kavanagh_(Arizona_politic...
- nonrandomstring 4y ago
  > If the cop says you were 6ft away and you say you were 8, who are they going to believe? The video footage. Image analysis along with metadata is sufficient to determine the viewpoint. > Does it really matter, you are already going to jail and your phone was unfortunately damaged in the arrest which you were also resisting. 5G, and perhaps within a few years the new civilian internet satellites, will evolve this situation. Constantly uploading/syncing video and images to secure remote storage is something war journalists have long sought. By the time someone with a gun threatens you to delete things you can go through the theatre of complying, or they can even destroy your device, but it's too late for them.
  - nonrandomstring 4y ago
    I am wondering whether down-voters disagree or don't understand how forensic video analysis can accurately pinpoint the positions of objects from perspective when the camera and lens model are known?
    - csydas 4y ago
      It's not about the technical details, it's about the fact that before you'd ever have a chance to present such an argument, you already are liable for a fine And jailtime (30 days). It doesn't matter what might end up happening later, the upfront cost of recording is now very real and there is a chance to get starved out of money to even try to take such an item to court. The tech might be undeniable, but it doesn't matter if there is a buffer in front of the system that would accept such tech as evidence, and said buffer could delay your chance to succeed by months if not years. It doesn't really matter how good the tech is if the system where it would help can stall out the situation beyond your means to live.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

hooloovoo_zoo 4y ago

What's the policy on 8' selfie sticks?

formerkrogemp 4y ago
Officer charges you with assault and resisting arrest. New supreme court rulings abrogate your exercising Miranda rights and limit liability for police and federal agents, even if they enter your home without a warrant and beat you.
visarga 4y ago
What about 15x zoom on iPhones?
- actually_a_dog 4y ago
  15x is digital zoom, which is useless. The iPhone 13 only has 3x optical zoom. Previous iPhones only have 2x optical zoom.

hulahoof 4y ago

Seems like a great way to prevent recordings by having one officer move towards onlookers and force them an arbitrary distance away

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Fargoan 4y ago
This is exactly what's going to happen.
ifelsethenyeah 4y ago
"Nothing to see here. Please disperse. And stop recording."
ravenstine 4y ago
Which they can and often do already...
- woodruffw 4y ago
  The fact that the police currently abuse their power isn't a good reason to give them additional legal latitude to do so.
  - bonestamp2 4y ago
    I don't think it was meant as justification, but rather as proof that it will definitely continue to happen.
    - woodruffw 4y ago
      I agree that it'll continue to happen, but I don't think we should allow that to desensitize us to attempts to further criminalize basic civic behavior.
      - 4y ago

roamerz 4y ago

I was going to reflect on how a gun that resembled an iphone might affect this conversation. I did a quick search and saw that they are easily available. So now as a Police Officer when someone takes a phone out of there pocket you have to immediately assess the risk. Am I going to be shot or recorded? Being in law enforcement is getting more dangerous by the day. Damn.

carbadtraingood 4y ago
This is a laughable concern. There's no reason to think there will be a rash of guns-shaped-like-iphones being a thing. Being a cop is less dangerous than, for instance, being a pizza delivery driver.
jrajav 4y ago
It is more dangerous to be a landscaper, a fisherman, or a truck driver in America, than to be a police officer. Not a joke. Being a police officer is one of the safer professions you can do outdoors or on the road. The risk of the job is absolutely normal and zero excuse for any concessions of accountability.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
RajT88 4y ago
How many times have these covert phone-guns been used in crimes? They are unlikely to be much use for that. Self defense or covert assassination, neither are at all common gun violence. Arguably a poor tool for much else. QED most of these phone-gun owners are likely living in some fantasy world. See: "Sword Guys" archetype.
NavinF 4y ago
Genuinely can’t tell if this is satire

anonu 4y ago

8 feet seems reasonable... I don't think you'd be able to capture much action any closer to be honest. Then again, laws like this are a slippery slope.

aeternum 4y ago
Can you legally record a cop stopping you from your own dashcam now? Probably not, it's within 8ft.
- jwilk 4y ago
  You are not a "bystandander" in that situation, are you?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

rexpop 4y ago

Top 25 Most Dangerous Professions (Fatal Injury Rate per 100,000 Workers) 1 Logging workers (70) 2 Aircraft pilots and flight engineers (60) 3 Roofers (50) 4 Construction helpers (40) 5 Crossing guards (38) 6 Garbage collectors (31) 7 Farming supervisors (29) 8 Delivery drivers (28) 9 Ironworkers (27) 10 Farmers (25) 11 Cement masons (22) 12 Agricultural workers (21) 13 Construction supervisors (20) 14 Highway maintenance workers (19) 15 Grounds maintenance workers (18) 16 Mining machine operators (18) 17 Supervisors of mechanics (16) 18 Power lineworkers (15) 19 Construction workers (14) 20 Construction equipment operators (14) 21 Maintenance workers (13) 22 Heavy vehicle mechanics (13) 23 Crane operators (13) 24 Landscaping supervisors (12) 25 Police officers (12) For what it's worth, most of us have little education on the subject of policing. We're taught a lot about how a biological cell operates, how to structure English grammar, and who fought the War of 1812, but absolutely nothing about how police function, when policing was invented, by whom, where, or to what end[0]. We go through our adult lives believing about police what we absorbed from children's cartoons and, later, TV procedurals or action movies. This leaves us with an impression of the field that is naive, if not outright fantasy. 0. https://www.versobooks.com/books/3906-the-end-of-policing https://www.versobooks.com/books/3906-the-end-of-policing

ifelsethenyeah 4y ago
I'm not sure where you sourced your information. Taxi drivers are around as dangerous as loggers. Petro-chem (oil rigs) are also extremely dangerous.
bigDinosaur 4y ago
Police tend to be assaulted at far higher rates than any kind of fatal injury rate, and I'm not sure I'd say it's 'safe' just because it's not death. Do you have any statistics that put a figure on the actual amount of psychopathic/drug fuelled/antisocial behaviour directed specifically at police? I'd be surprised if Airline pilots were assaulted at the same level as police, for example.
- kelseyfrog 4y ago
  cool, do the same list but for assault rates

wonderwonder 4y ago

Most insane part of this article was the below quote from the bill sponsor: "Kavanagh said it is important to leave this buffer for police to protect law enforcement from being assaulted by unruly bystanders. He said “there’s no reason” to come closer and predicted tragic outcomes for those who do, saying, “Such an approach is unreasonable, unnecessary, and unsafe, and should be made illegal." He is just happily excusing cops visiting "tragic outcomes" on people who get closer than 8 feet to cops. The lengths that people will go to too justify police just killing people is insane. How about we don't allow police to just wantonly murder or beat whoever they want? This same guy is an ex cop and "sponsored legislation that would prohibit oversight boards of police departments unless those boards were two-thirds sworn police officers" After the 2020 election he also said: ""Everybody shouldn’t be voting...Quantity is important, but we have to look at the quality of votes, as well." Seems like a really great guy that very much deserves to be in power /s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kavanagh_(Arizona_politician) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kavanagh_(Arizona_politic...

beebmam 4y ago
If there's anything that would build public trust back in police institutions, it would be politically-empowered independent citizen's oversight boards. It is such a shame that most cities in the US don't have these. I'd like the police to be a (mostly) transparent organization that is concerned with the health of our society and key partners to all upstanding citizens. Citizen oversight boards is one path to making that happen.
- SpikeDad 4y ago
  This is exactly the solution. I've long proposed civilian review boards assembled like juries - random citizens called in to judge specific cases of police actions. Theses juries would have the ability to rule on the culpability of the officers, select penalties and their deliberations would be secret and final. Police that know their actions would be reviewed and their chiefs and administrators would have no ability to save them would certainly reduce the amount of police illegality.
- wonderwonder 4y ago

majormajor 4y ago

The Ars headline is one of the few for this story that I've seen that has specified "for bystanders" vs making it sound like it was also illegal for the person involved (e.g. someone pulled over in a car or someone else in the car with them) to record. I probably wouldn't support the law - especially if the "cop walks towards someone recording" bit counts as "being within 8 feet of the activity" - but let's report things as written.

plaguepilled 4y ago

I'm not American so maybe there's some Very Cool Constitutional Reason this isn't challenged, but is this something people can class action the state over? Seems like the kind of thing that would get steamrolled in court

thaumasiotes 4y ago
Facial challenges to a law are rare and courts don't like them. A normal challenge would have to come from someone who had had the law enforced against them. Give it time.
smt88 4y ago
It will be steamrolled in court until it reaches the radical, ultra-conservative Supreme Court who will say that the Constitution doesn't mention cameras and has no opinion about filming, at which point the law will stand.
- plaguepilled 4y ago
  Frustrating, but that makes sense. What's the mechanism to lawfully replace the current Supreme Court with normal people?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - thfuran 4y ago
    Wait until they die. Strictly speaking, there is a legal mechanism to remove them, but it basically wouldn't happen short of them being a serial killer. It requires the house of representatives to pass articles of impeachment by majority vote, then the Senate to hold a trial presided over by the chief justice of the supreme Court, at which a supermajority vote would lead to removal from office.
  - smt88 4y ago
    The legal mechanism to fix all of this is to vote out the fascists. It's going to take a while. I am hopeful because this country survived McCarthyism, the Vietnam War, and other authoritarian nightmares.

grecy 4y ago

The slippery slope keeps getting steeper and steeper... they continue to pass new laws to make the person recording a criminal act into a criminal, but do nothing against the person committing the criminal act in the first place that is on film! See Ag-Gag laws: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ag-gag https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ag-gag

ifelsethenyeah 4y ago

So, what does "close" mean? 1000 ft with a telescope? I can understand not interfering with the immediate official duties, but this seems like it will be overturned on 1a grounds.

dawnerd 4y ago
Article says a minimum of 8 feet away.

Thorentis 4y ago

If I was cop, I would certainly want to know that there is a physical boundary in law that bystanders cannot cross. For my own safety, and for theirs. I see nothing unreasonable about not allowing people to cross this boundary. The law does not prevent recording. It says you cannot record closer than 8ft. Why would somebody need to get closer than 8ft to an officer doing their job, when you have no involvement in the situation at hand? Adding more people to the situation simply increases the stress of all involved.

knodi123 4y ago
Does this law contain a provision that prevents the cops from moving closer to civilians? If I was a bystander, I'd certainly want to know that a cop wasn't allowed to take two steps towards me, declare that I am now within the 8 ft barrier, and am now subject to assault and arrest unless I delete the recording. Don't make laws unless you've thoroughly thought about how they can be abused by bad actors.
- SCLeo 4y ago
  > The new Arizona law requires any bystanders recording police activity in the state to stand at a minimum of 8 feet away from the action. If bystanders move closer after police have warned them to back off, they risk being charged with a misdemeanor and incurring fines of up to $500, jail time of up to 30 days, or probation of up to a year. I have not read the law myself, but if the summary is accurate, it seems to suggest police moving towards the bystander does not count.
  - bonestamp2 4y ago
    I don't see anything that addresses the potential problem of the officer moving closer.
    - mlyle 4y ago
      Read it, then: https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/HB2319S.pdf https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/HB2319S.pdf You can't record as a bystander within 8' of law enforcement activity, defined as "QUESTIONING A SUSPICIOUS PERSON. 33 2. CONDUCTING AN ARREST, ISSUING A SUMMONS OR ENFORCING THE LAW. 34 3. HANDLING AN EMOTIONALLY DISTURBED OR DISORDERLY PERSON WHO IS 35 EXHIBITING ABNORMAL BEHAVIOR. " If you're the subject of activity, e.g. they deem you as a suspicious person and move towards you, you may record.

Terry_Roll 4y ago

I think it fair to say the US cops are rather paranoid and some prone to roid rage, so this is sensible, last thing you want is to be on your hands and knees dealing with a suspect whilst worrying about members of the public who might be to close to the action for their citizen policing media content. Most if not all of the camera footage of George Floyd being murdered was taken from over 8ft away!

jollybean 4y ago

8ft should be the required distance for everything unless the person is involved. Police doing an arrest have every reasonable reason to ask people to 'stand back a bit' and 8ft seems about right. The moment there is some kind of interaction of consequence, the 'spot' becomes an issue of civic concern, conflict, violence etc.. Cops may have to draw weapons, fight, god knows what in order to do their jobs. You can watch/film or whatever from 8ft.

kevinpet 4y ago

I'm sure this state rep is a scumbag in general and all that, but what the law says is: * bystanders can't record within 8 ft of the police questioning a suspect, arresting someone, or dealing with a mental health case. * the person police are interacting with is exempt and can record unless that interfere with the police operations. I.e. no guarantee you can hold your phone while handcuffed. * the driver and passengers of a car pulled over are also explicitly exempt. I think the opposition to this is a knee jerk over reaction comes across as just ... not rooted in reality. If you insist on getting up in arms about Arizona's contempt for the first amendment, I encourage you to go burn a flag and dare them to arrest you for violating https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/03703.htm https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/03703.htm

Justin_K 4y ago
8 ft seems pretty reasonable... Not sure why people are upset over this. Police officers can't question and keep track of bystanders hanging over their shoulders. Am I missing something?
- x86_64Ubuntu 4y ago
  Because interfering with police is already illegal, and the law only deals with RECORDING police officers which is kind of peculiar if the concern for safety was legitimate.
rahimnathwani 4y ago
You might be able to take a decent recording from 8 feet away, but: - there may be obstructions or bystanders closer to the incident, partially or fully blocking your view - you may only be able to see clearly from a limited range of angles, and they may all point off the sidewalk into the road, meaning you need to risk your life to get a usable shot

mellosouls 4y ago

I don't know what the answer is here but I have sympathy with police trying to do their job with hostile bystanders recording their every move and uploading to to YouTube in edited contextless hatchet jobs intended to ridicule or undermine. Of course there are bad cops where video has provided useful evidence of their behaviour but for ordinary professional police officers it must add a very unpleasant dimension to already stressful situations. I don't know the law at all but I would hope that any liberal enabling of filming is constrained by dissemination that identifies individuals without very good reason.

Daishiman 4y ago
How is recording hostile? If anything it's definitive proof that their job is being done accordingly or not. Of course, the reason this happens is because police in the US are just another group of organized thugs.
- mellosouls 4y ago
  That was a prime example of the hostility.
  - Daishiman 4y ago
    Hostility is when police perform no-knock raids and end up killing innocent people, or shoot unarmed civilians, which happens pretty damn often in the US as seen by the death by cop statistics.

spoonjim 4y ago

This doesn't seem that unreasonable. You don't need to get closer than 8 feet to record police misconduct, and getting closer than 8 feet to an active arrest is definitely pretty goddamn close. The 8 foot perimeter seems perfectly reasonable.

ed_blackburn 4y ago

The notion of policing without consent feels so alien to me. As a UK citizen I used to take this for granted, but wonder if the social contract in the UK will be broken in favour of the US in the future. I hope not. I feel for the people of Arizona.

BiteCode_dev 4y ago

8ft is 2.4m, it's not that long, it's the lenght of a small car. With current modern resolutions and zooms, you can even read the name of cops on their plaque from that distance. I don't think it's going to prevent much recording. In fact, the recording are probably be of much more quality: instead of close ups that doesn't show much actions, we will see the a bigger context. Most useful videos are from at least 8 ft away. I understand the author of the law doesn't have a great background in the US and cops have terrible reputation in this country. So it's probable there is an abuse path I don't see here. But if I haven't been given that context, the law would not have seen excessive: in a law enforcement context, you don't want every body to park too close to the hot spot. Also, there is this annoying tendency of people with a camera to put it in your face, or to not mind their surrounding. Given an arrest can be tensed, 8ft sound like it make sense. What am I missing, as a French person not understanding all the weird american social details ?

csydas 4y ago
It's not so much the specific distance as the limitation and illegal "zone" that now exists around officers, a moving target for when you can suddenly ve performing something illegal that wasn't illegal a few centimeters ago. A cop leaning a bit or just shifting their weight is enough to make you a criminal. The main reason there is such concern over this is because the power and corruption in many police forces and a lack of accountability for misbehavior of police, combined with the silliness of such a concept of no recording zone that now surrounds officers. The issue isn't about how practical it is to record a police officer, it's that rather than address institutional corruption and misbehavior, there is a very vague law with ridiculous premises invented that gives police the ability to issue fines and arrests. Proof of misbehavior can be confiscated by a sudden movement by any police officer. It's a very strange power to give police officers.
- Hnrobert42 4y ago
  If you are able to position yourself at a safe distance down to the centimeter, you probably also have the super power to move when the officer shifts weight. The easy solution is to post up at 15 feet and vigilantly adapt. If you are filming an intense arrest, I would hope you would maintain that sort of situational awareness anyway. I certainly understand your concerns about abuse of power. However, giving officers room to do their job is not “very strange” nor is the premise “ridiculous.” Indeed, moving bystanders back to a reasonable distance might reduce tension and the likelihood of misbehavior

gtvwill 4y ago

papito 4y ago

I hope that the strikedown of Miranda Rights will not be as much of a shock to people as Roe was. They are going to have to back-edit thousands of episodes of Law and Order.

the_only_law 4y ago
Funny because half these cops shows love glorifying illegal activity. Just make sure the villain of the episode is something really bad like a terrorist and violating their rights is cool and ok.

ETH_start 4y ago

It seems like a reasonable law.