5 ms·

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 f

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
  - csydas 4y ago
    I appreciate what I assume is a good faith attempt to read this law, but the law isn't about giving the officers room to safely operate. If that were the case, it would not cite _recording the officers_ as the illegal action, it would just define a minimum perimeter of non-interference. > 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 As the law is written and the language of the law specifically acting on _making a video recording_, and nothing else: IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON TO KNOWINGLY MAKE A VIDEO RECORDING 7 OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY IF THE PERSON MAKING THE VIDEO RECORDING IS 8 WITHIN EIGHT FEET OF WHERE THE PERSON KNOWS OR REASONABLY SHOULD KNOW THAT 9 LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY IS OCCURRING, https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/HB2319S.pdf https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/HB2319S.pdf If this was about officer safety to operate, then it would just define it as such, but it goes out of its way to specifically forbid recording. So I can do the following actions which are certainly disruptive to the police making an arrest without violating this law: - Stop for a smoke next to an officer (presuming I am in one of the allowed places for smoking) - Make out with someone in a publicly respectable way - Busking of any kind - Rollerskate/Skateboard as long as I am practicing reasonable safety I think it's not easily contestable that these actions are _more_ disruptive to the police being engaged in an arrest, but the law has no concern about them as the focus of the law is exclusively recording. Other laws regarding arrests don't mention such a distance or rights for the officers. The point here is not some desire to interfere with arrests, it's that the premise of your statement that it's about officer safety and ability to perform doesn't pass scrutiny against the text of the law and other situations that would fall under the same concern, which are allowed. I don't see a justification for this law except to allow police the right to fine/jail people recording them. Edit: It may be suggested that laws should be concise and specific, and to a point I agree. However, such conciseness also means that the specific action meant to be prevented is much more clear. So I must stress, that even if the law is concise, this means that the focus is not on safety for police and bystanders, but specifically on recording the police. I'm not sure there is a logical interpretation any other way to suggest it's about safety to operate, because if it is, then the law is no longer concise and specific, it requires fairly roundabout inference to reach the spirit of the law.
Yaina 4y ago
The issue is not the precise distance, but that police officers can arrest you for being too close. Let's say you were 4m away and got arrested anyways. The officer stopped you from filming and it deterred others to start filming too. Even if the charges get dropped later on (which they might not), the police already succeeded in stopping you from filming.
- Hnrobert42 4y ago
  Once you are being arrested, you are no longer a bystander, so you may continue filming. I understand your fear of the chilling effect this may have, but I would guess there will be just as many people who now feel empowered to say “This is my right. I’m 8 ft away.”
  - csydas 4y ago
    No, that is not the case. > B. NOTWITHSTANDING SUBSECTION A OF THIS SECTION, A PERSON WHO IS 22 THE SUBJECT OF POLICE CONTACT MAY RECORD THE ENCOUNTER IF THE PERSON IS 23 NOT INTERFERING WITH LAWFUL POLICE ACTIONS, The basis of being subject to this law is that you are interfering with police actions, and lawfulness can only be determined by the courts after the fact. I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that you would be in your legal right to record the police if you were being arrested for violation of this law, and likely it's something that would need to be tested fairly considerably in court before a definite interpretation was set. This is a really badly designed/defined law, and I would not rely on the guarantees of the law as being subject to it means it's already been determined you're interfering with police action.
JKCalhoun 4y ago
I feel like my dash cam could get me arrested if the cop approaches my car.
- Hnrobert42 4y ago
  I think the law excludes the restriction when filming in a confined structure. I don’t know if a car qualifies, but as the intention is to prevent interference, it arguably could qualify.
ProjectArcturis 4y ago
>abuse path The cop doesn't want you recording, moves closer to you, and arrests you.
- ryanmercer 4y ago
  Except that isn't what it is for. It's so when someone is being lawfully detained, you don't get 30 people circling the officer(s) shouting things and exciting one another, while recording and blocking view and the movement of officers. It's purely a safety thing. You don't want random people close to you while you are dealing with something These videos can be graphic: - Here protestors drag an officer into the crowd and savagely beat him https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Le07VPqBZ58 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Le07VPqBZ58 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sw3F91w6D78 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sw3F91w6D78 here is a video of onlookers recording agitating one another, several of which are standing in the street and blocking police vehicles. - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71wdrhKzuys https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71wdrhKzuys here a man that had been harassing local businesses and patrons all day charges a guardsman (who's an off-duty police officer) and the crowd starts surrounding him, recording, shouting things, agitating, when another bystander jumps to the guardsman's defense and now you've got multiple hostile people getting more and more agitated while the guardsman waits for uniformed police to come take the guy that tried to assault him, tried to damage his car, was harassing others, etc. - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H40vEOOs5z0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H40vEOOs5z0 here are protestors, standing around filming each other, assaulting a motorcycle officer on his motorcycle as he tries to drive away from them - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvDwWSl-sVE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvDwWSl-sVE here officers try to restrain a felon, in felony possession of a firearm, that had tried to assault officers while a felon unlawfully possessing a firearm, as people surrounded them to hold their phones as close to them as possible to take footage, then as 3 of them try to subdue the suspect that continued, while armed, to try and resist then has to escalate to non-lethal violence of gasp punching the guy to try to get him to submit. At 3:42 an onlooker throws a full trash can at the officers that are actively trying to handcuff an ARMED FELON that is fighting tooth and nail to escape. - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdFsumyHLXo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdFsumyHLXo guy on a roof of a business hops down, then retrieves a handgun and aims it at officers, the officers start issuing commands while a bystander walks into the officer's line of fire filming and occasionally shouting things (go to 4:20 and you can see them just right of 12 o'clock.) Etc. It's hard enough to deal with a life or death situation without an angry mob of people standing around shouting shoving their phone in your face.

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
- csydas 4y ago
  I appreciate what I assume is a good faith attempt to read this law, but the law isn't about giving the officers room to safely operate. If that were the case, it would not cite _recording the officers_ as the illegal action, it would just define a minimum perimeter of non-interference. > 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 As the law is written and the language of the law specifically acting on _making a video recording_, and nothing else: IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON TO KNOWINGLY MAKE A VIDEO RECORDING 7 OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY IF THE PERSON MAKING THE VIDEO RECORDING IS 8 WITHIN EIGHT FEET OF WHERE THE PERSON KNOWS OR REASONABLY SHOULD KNOW THAT 9 LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY IS OCCURRING, https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/HB2319S.pdf https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/HB2319S.pdf If this was about officer safety to operate, then it would just define it as such, but it goes out of its way to specifically forbid recording. So I can do the following actions which are certainly disruptive to the police making an arrest without violating this law: - Stop for a smoke next to an officer (presuming I am in one of the allowed places for smoking) - Make out with someone in a publicly respectable way - Busking of any kind - Rollerskate/Skateboard as long as I am practicing reasonable safety I think it's not easily contestable that these actions are _more_ disruptive to the police being engaged in an arrest, but the law has no concern about them as the focus of the law is exclusively recording. Other laws regarding arrests don't mention such a distance or rights for the officers. The point here is not some desire to interfere with arrests, it's that the premise of your statement that it's about officer safety and ability to perform doesn't pass scrutiny against the text of the law and other situations that would fall under the same concern, which are allowed. I don't see a justification for this law except to allow police the right to fine/jail people recording them. Edit: It may be suggested that laws should be concise and specific, and to a point I agree. However, such conciseness also means that the specific action meant to be prevented is much more clear. So I must stress, that even if the law is concise, this means that the focus is not on safety for police and bystanders, but specifically on recording the police. I'm not sure there is a logical interpretation any other way to suggest it's about safety to operate, because if it is, then the law is no longer concise and specific, it requires fairly roundabout inference to reach the spirit of the law.

Yaina 4y ago

The issue is not the precise distance, but that police officers can arrest you for being too close. Let's say you were 4m away and got arrested anyways. The officer stopped you from filming and it deterred others to start filming too. Even if the charges get dropped later on (which they might not), the police already succeeded in stopping you from filming.

Hnrobert42 4y ago
Once you are being arrested, you are no longer a bystander, so you may continue filming. I understand your fear of the chilling effect this may have, but I would guess there will be just as many people who now feel empowered to say “This is my right. I’m 8 ft away.”
- csydas 4y ago
  No, that is not the case. > B. NOTWITHSTANDING SUBSECTION A OF THIS SECTION, A PERSON WHO IS 22 THE SUBJECT OF POLICE CONTACT MAY RECORD THE ENCOUNTER IF THE PERSON IS 23 NOT INTERFERING WITH LAWFUL POLICE ACTIONS, The basis of being subject to this law is that you are interfering with police actions, and lawfulness can only be determined by the courts after the fact. I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that you would be in your legal right to record the police if you were being arrested for violation of this law, and likely it's something that would need to be tested fairly considerably in court before a definite interpretation was set. This is a really badly designed/defined law, and I would not rely on the guarantees of the law as being subject to it means it's already been determined you're interfering with police action.

JKCalhoun 4y ago

I feel like my dash cam could get me arrested if the cop approaches my car.

Hnrobert42 4y ago
I think the law excludes the restriction when filming in a confined structure. I don’t know if a car qualifies, but as the intention is to prevent interference, it arguably could qualify.

ProjectArcturis 4y ago

>abuse path The cop doesn't want you recording, moves closer to you, and arrests you.

ryanmercer 4y ago
Except that isn't what it is for. It's so when someone is being lawfully detained, you don't get 30 people circling the officer(s) shouting things and exciting one another, while recording and blocking view and the movement of officers. It's purely a safety thing. You don't want random people close to you while you are dealing with something These videos can be graphic: - Here protestors drag an officer into the crowd and savagely beat him https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Le07VPqBZ58 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Le07VPqBZ58 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sw3F91w6D78 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sw3F91w6D78 here is a video of onlookers recording agitating one another, several of which are standing in the street and blocking police vehicles. - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71wdrhKzuys https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71wdrhKzuys here a man that had been harassing local businesses and patrons all day charges a guardsman (who's an off-duty police officer) and the crowd starts surrounding him, recording, shouting things, agitating, when another bystander jumps to the guardsman's defense and now you've got multiple hostile people getting more and more agitated while the guardsman waits for uniformed police to come take the guy that tried to assault him, tried to damage his car, was harassing others, etc. - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H40vEOOs5z0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H40vEOOs5z0 here are protestors, standing around filming each other, assaulting a motorcycle officer on his motorcycle as he tries to drive away from them - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvDwWSl-sVE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvDwWSl-sVE here officers try to restrain a felon, in felony possession of a firearm, that had tried to assault officers while a felon unlawfully possessing a firearm, as people surrounded them to hold their phones as close to them as possible to take footage, then as 3 of them try to subdue the suspect that continued, while armed, to try and resist then has to escalate to non-lethal violence of gasp punching the guy to try to get him to submit. At 3:42 an onlooker throws a full trash can at the officers that are actively trying to handcuff an ARMED FELON that is fighting tooth and nail to escape. - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdFsumyHLXo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdFsumyHLXo guy on a roof of a business hops down, then retrieves a handgun and aims it at officers, the officers start issuing commands while a bystander walks into the officer's line of fire filming and occasionally shouting things (go to 4:20 and you can see them just right of 12 o'clock.) Etc. It's hard enough to deal with a life or death situation without an angry mob of people standing around shouting shoving their phone in your face.