3 ms·

This is tricky since it delves into first amendment territory. I wonder if it may be overturned by a higher court.

spacemanmatt 4y ago
I used to have some faith in the consistency of the appeals circuits but it has become a farce in my lifetime
elmerfud 4y ago
The original law it was proposed to be at 15 ft and they changed it to be 8 ft because of questions like this. Since courts have already upheld that police can keep non-party bystanders away from a scene at a reasonable distance codifying an 8 ft limit as a minimum reasonable distance is unlikely to be overturned by a court. Considering that police training routinely would keep people 20 to 25 ft away codifying this minimum distance at 8 ft is actually a big win and is probably closer than what courts would allow should it be challenged. It's also important to keep in mind that this distance does not apply to people who are party to the police interaction nor does it apply to passengers in a vehicle that are. It also does not apply to people in a house or a confined private space who are not a party to the police interaction. There are a great many exceptions to this if you actually read the law. Basically the 8-ft distance only applies to people who are not a party to the police interaction.
- mlyle 4y ago
  > Considering that police training routinely would keep people 20 to 25 ft away codifying this minimum distance at 8 ft is actually a big win " C. THIS SECTION DOES NOT ESTABLISH A RIGHT OR AUTHORIZE ANY PERSON TO MAKE A VIDEO RECORDING OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY." So, police can still attempt to keep people 25' away, and use other laws, they just can't charge them with this new misdemeanor.
- woodruffw 4y ago
  > Considering that police training routinely would keep people 20 to 25 ft away codifying this minimum distance at 8 ft is actually a big win and is probably closer than what courts would allow should it be challenged. This says nothing of either the constitutionality or propriety of keeping people 25 feet away, instead using it to bootstrap other limitations. The police are trained to do all sorts of absurd and patently unconstitutional things; the fact of that matter isn’t strong support for a law that further enables them to do so.
alistairSH 4y ago
My guess is it’s overturned at some point, winds up in SCOTUS’s lap, and they bend over backwards to justify it’s legality. Probably with Thomas writing the majority opinion and Sotomayor writing a well-reasoned yet scathing dissent.
- zimpenfish 4y ago
  Well, if the originalists are going to originalise, there's nothing in USC about cameras which means you therefore don't have any rights to use them in any circumstance and recording the police is verboten. Now if you want to use a pencil and sketch pad ...
  - alistairSH 4y ago
    It’s almost as if the Ninth Amendment doesn’t exist to them. I guess they stopped reading somewhere between 2 and 8.

I used to have some faith in the consistency of the appeals circuits but it has become a farce in my lifetime

The original law it was proposed to be at 15 ft and they changed it to be 8 ft because of questions like this. Since courts have already upheld that police can keep non-party bystanders away from a scene at a reasonable distance codifying an 8 ft limit as a minimum reasonable distance is unlikely to be overturned by a court. Considering that police training routinely would keep people 20 to 25 ft away codifying this minimum distance at 8 ft is actually a big win and is probably closer than what courts would allow should it be challenged. It's also important to keep in mind that this distance does not apply to people who are party to the police interaction nor does it apply to passengers in a vehicle that are. It also does not apply to people in a house or a confined private space who are not a party to the police interaction. There are a great many exceptions to this if you actually read the law. Basically the 8-ft distance only applies to people who are not a party to the police interaction.

mlyle 4y ago
> Considering that police training routinely would keep people 20 to 25 ft away codifying this minimum distance at 8 ft is actually a big win " C. THIS SECTION DOES NOT ESTABLISH A RIGHT OR AUTHORIZE ANY PERSON TO MAKE A VIDEO RECORDING OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY." So, police can still attempt to keep people 25' away, and use other laws, they just can't charge them with this new misdemeanor.
woodruffw 4y ago
> Considering that police training routinely would keep people 20 to 25 ft away codifying this minimum distance at 8 ft is actually a big win and is probably closer than what courts would allow should it be challenged. This says nothing of either the constitutionality or propriety of keeping people 25 feet away, instead using it to bootstrap other limitations. The police are trained to do all sorts of absurd and patently unconstitutional things; the fact of that matter isn’t strong support for a law that further enables them to do so.

alistairSH 4y ago

My guess is it’s overturned at some point, winds up in SCOTUS’s lap, and they bend over backwards to justify it’s legality. Probably with Thomas writing the majority opinion and Sotomayor writing a well-reasoned yet scathing dissent.

zimpenfish 4y ago
Well, if the originalists are going to originalise, there's nothing in USC about cameras which means you therefore don't have any rights to use them in any circumstance and recording the police is verboten. Now if you want to use a pencil and sketch pad ...
- alistairSH 4y ago
  It’s almost as if the Ninth Amendment doesn’t exist to them. I guess they stopped reading somewhere between 2 and 8.