2 ms·

> 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 wa

> 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."