3 ms·

> 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 cl

by 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.
  - tsimionescu 4y ago
    > If you're the subject of activity, e.g. they deem you as a suspicious person and move towards you, you may record. You may record, but you will not be able to after they handcuff you. So, they'll claim they were establishing a perimeter for the initial activity, that you refused to move away or stop filming from that perimeter, making your recording up to that point illegal, and then they'll detain you for this offense, handcuffing you to prevent you from filming. Or they'll just take your phone under civil asset forfeiture laws, as it was involved in illegal activity (filming a police officer from too close by).
    - Hnrobert42 4y ago
      That would be a pretty extreme escalation of civil asset forfeiture. I understand that you distrust the police. You have reason to. But resorting to hyperbole diminishes your argument.
      - LocalH 4y ago
        It's not hyperbole when it's based on historical abuses of power.
        Hnrobert42 4y ago
        Are there lots of examples of cops using asset forfeiture laws to confiscate individual phones to cover up police malfeasance?
        notch656a 4y ago
        Arizona has somewhat decent civil forfeiture protections: civil forfeiture laws require a crime to take place for permanent forfeiture. So this law puts the wheels in motion for lawful seizure of these phones. You won't find much recent prior seizures in Arizona because Arizona cops can't fulfill a lawful seizure without a crime, and prior to now recording a public official performing their duty was basically never a criminal act.
  - bonestamp2 4y ago
    Yes, I'm aware that it protects the subject of the investigation -- they can still record when the officer moves closer than 8', but it does not protect bystanders. This is a clear, and obviously intentional, loophole that allows police to criminalize something they don't like. If this was actually about the safety of officers, there would be no need to mention recording -- they would simply limit all bystanders from being within 8' of such activity whether they're recording or not. Since it is about recording, we know it is just about recording, and not actual officer safety.
mindslight 4y ago
> it seems to suggest police moving towards the bystander does not count. Except in cop "logic" it does. Because once they move on someone filming, that person is now within 8 feet and thereby a "criminal" - worrying about the exception to the law is for prosecutors to do later. The filmer is a threat, because cops are juiced up on paranoid delusions that everyone that doesn't fall into line and salute them is out to attack them. And therefore the cop justifies themselves preemptively attacking the filmer, smashing their camera, etc, to get the situation "under control". When the incident actually sees court (persecution of the victim of course, cops themselves rarely end up as defendants for their own crimes), the cop will cry about how scared they were etc (with a manly facade) and how their job is so hard, and they have to make quick decisions in the heat of the moment, blah blah blah. Even if the victim does spend enough on attorneys to successfully defend themselves legally, they'll still suffer the injuries from being attacked, their broken phone, other possessions "lost" (stolen) by the police, time and money spend defending themselves, etc. Like every other recent Republican legislative dog whistle, it's purporting to address a problem that simply does not commonly exist - as many others have pointed out, interfering with police officers is already illegal. This law does not create a clearer delineation, but rather is focused on the specific act of filming to add uncertainty and undermine that individual freedom despite the anticonstitutionality of doing so. The only reason the exceptions are even there is to make it sound like equity has been considered, but they're really just afterthoughts to the main goal of increasing the arbitrary and capricious power of the state.

by SCLeo 4y ago

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.
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  > If you're the subject of activity, e.g. they deem you as a suspicious person and move towards you, you may record. You may record, but you will not be able to after they handcuff you. So, they'll claim they were establishing a perimeter for the initial activity, that you refused to move away or stop filming from that perimeter, making your recording up to that point illegal, and then they'll detain you for this offense, handcuffing you to prevent you from filming. Or they'll just take your phone under civil asset forfeiture laws, as it was involved in illegal activity (filming a police officer from too close by).
  - Hnrobert42 4y ago
    That would be a pretty extreme escalation of civil asset forfeiture. I understand that you distrust the police. You have reason to. But resorting to hyperbole diminishes your argument.
    - LocalH 4y ago
      It's not hyperbole when it's based on historical abuses of power.
      - Hnrobert42 4y ago
        Are there lots of examples of cops using asset forfeiture laws to confiscate individual phones to cover up police malfeasance?
        notch656a 4y ago
        Arizona has somewhat decent civil forfeiture protections: civil forfeiture laws require a crime to take place for permanent forfeiture. So this law puts the wheels in motion for lawful seizure of these phones. You won't find much recent prior seizures in Arizona because Arizona cops can't fulfill a lawful seizure without a crime, and prior to now recording a public official performing their duty was basically never a criminal act.
- bonestamp2 4y ago
  Yes, I'm aware that it protects the subject of the investigation -- they can still record when the officer moves closer than 8', but it does not protect bystanders. This is a clear, and obviously intentional, loophole that allows police to criminalize something they don't like. If this was actually about the safety of officers, there would be no need to mention recording -- they would simply limit all bystanders from being within 8' of such activity whether they're recording or not. Since it is about recording, we know it is just about recording, and not actual officer safety.

mindslight 4y ago

> it seems to suggest police moving towards the bystander does not count. Except in cop "logic" it does. Because once they move on someone filming, that person is now within 8 feet and thereby a "criminal" - worrying about the exception to the law is for prosecutors to do later. The filmer is a threat, because cops are juiced up on paranoid delusions that everyone that doesn't fall into line and salute them is out to attack them. And therefore the cop justifies themselves preemptively attacking the filmer, smashing their camera, etc, to get the situation "under control". When the incident actually sees court (persecution of the victim of course, cops themselves rarely end up as defendants for their own crimes), the cop will cry about how scared they were etc (with a manly facade) and how their job is so hard, and they have to make quick decisions in the heat of the moment, blah blah blah. Even if the victim does spend enough on attorneys to successfully defend themselves legally, they'll still suffer the injuries from being attacked, their broken phone, other possessions "lost" (stolen) by the police, time and money spend defending themselves, etc. Like every other recent Republican legislative dog whistle, it's purporting to address a problem that simply does not commonly exist - as many others have pointed out, interfering with police officers is already illegal. This law does not create a clearer delineation, but rather is focused on the specific act of filming to add uncertainty and undermine that individual freedom despite the anticonstitutionality of doing so. The only reason the exceptions are even there is to make it sound like equity has been considered, but they're really just afterthoughts to the main goal of increasing the arbitrary and capricious power of the state.