5 ms·

We obviously don't let police "just do" that, and I don't see how this law increases risk here. The other side that people seem to be missing here is that it

We obviously don't let police "just do" that, and I don't see how this law increases risk here. The other side that people seem to be missing here is that it explicitly establishes a boundary past which it's perfectly fine to film the police. In many other jurisdictions this would be at the discretion of the officer, if they felt you were merely interfering with their investigation they could arrest you. A law like this clarifies exactly where that line is expected to be. And it's reasonably short enough and with appropriate exceptions that on it's own, I don't see a problem with the law. Regardless of how one may feel about the sponsor of the bill, it was still voted on and passed by a majority of the legislative body.

galleywest200 4y ago
The law does not seem to stop an officer from walking close to someone to demand they stop filming. It seems that if you are filming "safely from a distance" they just need to send one officer over to wherever you are and demand you stop filming.
- deelowe 4y ago
  This is exactly what will happen.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- benglish11 4y ago
  Then you are no longer a bystander and may continue to film. The irony with this bill is that it would be illegal to closely film the police as a bystander, but if you are arrested/detained for doing so you may film the police detaining you.
  - dylan604 4y ago
    Only if you stop and then re-start the video clip. Otherwise, it's the same clip that started while illegal rendering the entire clip illegal. Or some such lawyerly BS to get the cops to be the victim.
- Thorrez 4y ago
  It's not 8 feet from the nearest cop. It's 8 feet from where the arrest is happening. So unless both the arresting officer and the arrestee come toward you, you can stay where you are and film.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - genocidicbunny 4y ago
    Which cops will absolutely be doing. After all, if the arrestee refuses, the cops can just beat them up a little more and claim they were also resisting arrest.
    - Thorrez 4y ago
      If the cop drags the arrestee toward you, you can walk backward keeping the 8 foot distance. If they keep following you around, this will make for a pretty interesting video that's almost certain to get some wide sharing if you post it online.
      - genocidicbunny 4y ago
        Oh my sweet summer child. That just gives them an even better excuse to detain you. Now you're acting suspiciously and running away from the police.
        Thorrez 4y ago
        Either you're being detained, in which case the law says you're allowed to record your own detainment, or you're not being detained, in which case you're allowed to walk away. In no case does this law give the police an extra reason to detain you if you walk away while they walk toward you. If police are going to make up something bogus like arresting you because you're giving them space, they can do that regardless of this new law. This new law doesn't make it worse.
    - deleted 4y ago
- mlyle 4y ago
  "E. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, "LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY" MEANS ANY OF THE FOLLOWING: 1. QUESTIONING A SUSPICIOUS PERSON. 2. CONDUCTING AN ARREST, ISSUING A SUMMONS OR ENFORCING THE LAW. 3. HANDLING AN EMOTIONALLY DISTURBED OR DISORDERLY PERSON WHO IS EXHIBITING ABNORMAL BEHAVIOR." And if they approach you to conduct "law enforcement activity" on you, you're effectively exempted and allowed to film. https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/HB2319S.pdf https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/HB2319S.pdf
  - InCityDreams 4y ago
    Given worldwide 'shot by cop' statistics, i would put '..AN EMOTIONALLY DISTURBED OR DISORDERLY PERSON WHO IS EXHIBITING ABNORMAL BEHAVIOR." as a valid label for US cops.
- Gordonjcp 4y ago
  Telephoto lens and a cherry picker that goes up higher than eight feet.
  - thfuran 4y ago
    Ah, yes. I never leave home without them.
testbjjl 4y ago
> Regardless of how one may feel about the sponsor of the bill, it was still voted on and passed by a majority of the legislative body. A legislative body that subjectively follows the law.
gleenn 4y ago
IANAL, is that actually the case? Just because you set the minimum doesn't mean if you're on the other side that you're legal. It's not binary. There is the legal grey zone.
KennyBlanken 4y ago
> A law like this clarifies exactly where that line is expected to be. It sets a specific measurement, but it would be extremely difficult to prove someone was or wasn't within the set distance. The court will always defer to police over other witnesses. The law is completely unnecessary for the stated purpose. Every state already has plenty of "interfering with a police officer" type laws...and there's no epidemic of people filming stuff, getting in the way of police. This law is a softball for the supreme court to use to revoke their prior ruling that filming police is constitutional. I suspect it's also designed to stop passengers in a stopped motor vehicle from filming - a few police shooting cases involved footage taken by a front seat passenger, showing the driver never made any threatening moves.
- shakezula 4y ago
  > The court will always defer to police over other witnesses. That’s exactly what this case will do. Cops will just walk over to you and insist you were interfering and arrest you. > This law is a softball They’ve been lining these cases up for a year plus in preparation for this exact moment. Edited to remove incorrect take.
  - kevinpet 4y ago
    Why would you imagine rather than spend a few minutes to read the article? It explicitly exempts passengers in a car from the 8 foot rule.
- zimpenfish 4y ago
  > I suspect it's also designed to stop passengers in a stopped motor vehicle from filming No - "The same exception extends to anyone recording while in a vehicle involved in a police stop."
decebalus1 4y ago
> a boundary past which it's perfectly fine to film the police. A boundary relative to what? An immovable object or a cop who can walk? I mean walk towards someone who's at 8 feet and tell them to stop filming?
mlyle 4y ago
> The other side that people seem to be missing here is that it explicitly establishes a boundary past which it's perfectly fine to film the police. vs. " C. THIS SECTION DOES NOT ESTABLISH A RIGHT OR AUTHORIZE ANY PERSON TO MAKE A VIDEO RECORDING OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY. " https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/HB2319S.pdf https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/HB2319S.pdf The law explicitly makes it closer than 8 feet, after a warning, illegal (with some exceptions). It does not supersede other laws about interfering with an investigation.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
satellite2 4y ago
It prevents victims of police brutality to film the scene. In most cases you don't have bystander read to film abuse. So filming your own interactions with the police should be a must.
- Hnrobert42 4y ago
  The 8ft restriction only applies to bystanders.
TomSwirly 4y ago
> The other side that people seem to be missing here is that it explicitly establishes a boundary past which it's perfectly fine to film the police. > I don't see a problem with the law. How can you possibly say this? It means the police can completely stop you from filming, simply by having cop walk up to you. Heck, a cop can walk up behind you filming, when you can't see him, and simply arrest you. "You were ten feet away from them, but here I am behind you, off to jail for a year!" > it was still voted on and passed by a majority of the legislative body. So were plenty of evil, immoral things. This statement is a signpost - when people say that, it means, "Morality is not an issue that concerns me."
lamontcg 4y ago
> The other side that people seem to be missing here is that it explicitly establishes a boundary past which it's perfectly fine to film the police. That boundary is likely to be chipped into further and then upheld by the current SCOTUS. The repeal of Roe v. Wade shows that we can't really trust the the slippery slope is a fallacy these days.

galleywest200 4y ago

The law does not seem to stop an officer from walking close to someone to demand they stop filming. It seems that if you are filming "safely from a distance" they just need to send one officer over to wherever you are and demand you stop filming.

deelowe 4y ago
This is exactly what will happen.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
benglish11 4y ago
Then you are no longer a bystander and may continue to film. The irony with this bill is that it would be illegal to closely film the police as a bystander, but if you are arrested/detained for doing so you may film the police detaining you.
- dylan604 4y ago
  Only if you stop and then re-start the video clip. Otherwise, it's the same clip that started while illegal rendering the entire clip illegal. Or some such lawyerly BS to get the cops to be the victim.
Thorrez 4y ago
It's not 8 feet from the nearest cop. It's 8 feet from where the arrest is happening. So unless both the arresting officer and the arrestee come toward you, you can stay where you are and film.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- genocidicbunny 4y ago
  Which cops will absolutely be doing. After all, if the arrestee refuses, the cops can just beat them up a little more and claim they were also resisting arrest.
  - Thorrez 4y ago
    If the cop drags the arrestee toward you, you can walk backward keeping the 8 foot distance. If they keep following you around, this will make for a pretty interesting video that's almost certain to get some wide sharing if you post it online.
    - genocidicbunny 4y ago
      Oh my sweet summer child. That just gives them an even better excuse to detain you. Now you're acting suspiciously and running away from the police.
      - Thorrez 4y ago
        Either you're being detained, in which case the law says you're allowed to record your own detainment, or you're not being detained, in which case you're allowed to walk away. In no case does this law give the police an extra reason to detain you if you walk away while they walk toward you. If police are going to make up something bogus like arresting you because you're giving them space, they can do that regardless of this new law. This new law doesn't make it worse.
  - deleted 4y ago
mlyle 4y ago
"E. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, "LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY" MEANS ANY OF THE FOLLOWING: 1. QUESTIONING A SUSPICIOUS PERSON. 2. CONDUCTING AN ARREST, ISSUING A SUMMONS OR ENFORCING THE LAW. 3. HANDLING AN EMOTIONALLY DISTURBED OR DISORDERLY PERSON WHO IS EXHIBITING ABNORMAL BEHAVIOR." And if they approach you to conduct "law enforcement activity" on you, you're effectively exempted and allowed to film. https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/HB2319S.pdf https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/HB2319S.pdf
- InCityDreams 4y ago
  Given worldwide 'shot by cop' statistics, i would put '..AN EMOTIONALLY DISTURBED OR DISORDERLY PERSON WHO IS EXHIBITING ABNORMAL BEHAVIOR." as a valid label for US cops.
Gordonjcp 4y ago
Telephoto lens and a cherry picker that goes up higher than eight feet.
- thfuran 4y ago
  Ah, yes. I never leave home without them.

testbjjl 4y ago

> Regardless of how one may feel about the sponsor of the bill, it was still voted on and passed by a majority of the legislative body. A legislative body that subjectively follows the law.

gleenn 4y ago

IANAL, is that actually the case? Just because you set the minimum doesn't mean if you're on the other side that you're legal. It's not binary. There is the legal grey zone.

KennyBlanken 4y ago

> A law like this clarifies exactly where that line is expected to be. It sets a specific measurement, but it would be extremely difficult to prove someone was or wasn't within the set distance. The court will always defer to police over other witnesses. The law is completely unnecessary for the stated purpose. Every state already has plenty of "interfering with a police officer" type laws...and there's no epidemic of people filming stuff, getting in the way of police. This law is a softball for the supreme court to use to revoke their prior ruling that filming police is constitutional. I suspect it's also designed to stop passengers in a stopped motor vehicle from filming - a few police shooting cases involved footage taken by a front seat passenger, showing the driver never made any threatening moves.

shakezula 4y ago
> The court will always defer to police over other witnesses. That’s exactly what this case will do. Cops will just walk over to you and insist you were interfering and arrest you. > This law is a softball They’ve been lining these cases up for a year plus in preparation for this exact moment. Edited to remove incorrect take.
- kevinpet 4y ago
  Why would you imagine rather than spend a few minutes to read the article? It explicitly exempts passengers in a car from the 8 foot rule.
zimpenfish 4y ago
> I suspect it's also designed to stop passengers in a stopped motor vehicle from filming No - "The same exception extends to anyone recording while in a vehicle involved in a police stop."

decebalus1 4y ago

> a boundary past which it's perfectly fine to film the police. A boundary relative to what? An immovable object or a cop who can walk? I mean walk towards someone who's at 8 feet and tell them to stop filming?

mlyle 4y ago

> The other side that people seem to be missing here is that it explicitly establishes a boundary past which it's perfectly fine to film the police. vs. " C. THIS SECTION DOES NOT ESTABLISH A RIGHT OR AUTHORIZE ANY PERSON TO MAKE A VIDEO RECORDING OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY. " https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/HB2319S.pdf https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/HB2319S.pdf The law explicitly makes it closer than 8 feet, after a warning, illegal (with some exceptions). It does not supersede other laws about interfering with an investigation.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

satellite2 4y ago

It prevents victims of police brutality to film the scene. In most cases you don't have bystander read to film abuse. So filming your own interactions with the police should be a must.

Hnrobert42 4y ago
The 8ft restriction only applies to bystanders.

TomSwirly 4y ago

> The other side that people seem to be missing here is that it explicitly establishes a boundary past which it's perfectly fine to film the police. > I don't see a problem with the law. How can you possibly say this? It means the police can completely stop you from filming, simply by having cop walk up to you. Heck, a cop can walk up behind you filming, when you can't see him, and simply arrest you. "You were ten feet away from them, but here I am behind you, off to jail for a year!" > it was still voted on and passed by a majority of the legislative body. So were plenty of evil, immoral things. This statement is a signpost - when people say that, it means, "Morality is not an issue that concerns me."

lamontcg 4y ago

> The other side that people seem to be missing here is that it explicitly establishes a boundary past which it's perfectly fine to film the police. That boundary is likely to be chipped into further and then upheld by the current SCOTUS. The repeal of Roe v. Wade shows that we can't really trust the the slippery slope is a fallacy these days.