2 ms·
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
by 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 agoObvious protection. Exception proves the rule.
- WesternWind 4y agoquoting the law, "THIS SECTION DOES NOT ESTABLISH A RIGHT OR AUTHORIZE ANY PERSON TO MAKE A VIDEO RECORDING OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY."
- throwawaymaths 4y agoRight this is the problem. If it said the opposite, it would be a FANTASTIC law.
- colechristensen 4y agoBut 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 agoYou 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 agoYou 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 agoBut then the cop runs towards you and now everyone filming can potentially end up in prison.
- kolanos 4y ago> It also seems like a protection for recording the police. This was already constitutionally protected. And this new law is likely going to be challenged on its constitutionality.