4 ms·

You need to read the law to understand it better and also understand the current rulings that courts have provided on filming police. This law is none of those

You need to read the law to understand it better and also understand the current rulings that courts have provided on filming police. This law is none of those things that you state it's simply codifying a distance for what the courts have already upheld that police can do. If you are party to the police interaction you can film closer than 8 ft. If you are in a car as a passenger you can film the interaction and the police cannot ask you to stop. If you are a non-party person simply watching the interaction the police can now ask you to maintain a distance of 8 ft. Courts have already upheld routinely that police can ask people who are not party to the interaction to step away and they can create a reasonable area around them and the scene and keep people out of it. The definition of reasonable area varies based upon the situation. This that a reasonable area is a minimum of 8 ft. There are situations where that distance may be greater. Regardless of what you think of the police they do need to be empowered to keep bystanders out of the middle of an interaction with their cameras in order to conduct their duties. 8 ft for a bystander is a very reasonable distance. At 8 ft your camera can see anything that a human-sized person is doing it to another human-sized person and it can record the audio of that interaction as well at 8 ft. And as always the person who is party to the interaction can record the interaction and this is codified in this law as well. Laws like this do more to uphold a citizens ability to record the police then it does to take it away. Any reasonable person would understand that because without a law like this the police could argue that 50 ft is a reasonable distance. Now we have a law that says 8 ft is a reasonable distance in Arizona.

watwut 4y ago
Police can tell you to step away whether you are holding the camera or not. The thing this does is that people who are close to what is actually happening will be scared to take camera and start filming. And if they do, the cops will be able to harass them.
account-5 4y ago
Thanks for the calm and reasonable response. Some of the comments here make me wonder how close people want to be to an ongoing incident? Inches? A foot? At a certain distance you're just in the way, 8 feet seems completely acceptable. Police are able to do their job without obstruction from onlookers, onlockers are close enough to see/record the police doing their job.
- staticassertion 4y ago
  As close as I want to be, if it's a public space.
  - account-5 4y ago
    Maybe you could get a piggyback from the cops while they're dealing with something?
    - staticassertion 4y ago
      That would be assault.
plandis 4y ago
This law only serves to tell police how close they need to move towards people filming in order to get them to stop so their abuses can be done without being recorded.
- ksaj 4y ago
  I think an officer approaching you makes you party to the interaction. I wouldn't shut mine off in this case, and I'd happily face court if an officer approached me while simultaneously claiming I'm not party to the interaction. The officer's approach to my person is the only the interaction I'm videoing at that moment. Anything else is incidental.
  - calabin 4y ago
    I think that one major issue here is that while you and I likely have the time and other resources to go fight something like this if it were to occur, many of the people for whom this law will be most relevant (areas where the most police activity occurs are often in impoverished areas) do not have that same luxury. If you're barely scrapping by on an hourly job, and then get picked up or fined for this, oftentimes your only option is to accept the plea so you can get out of the courtroom and try to get back to work. This law serves to provide a means for the police to place that burden on people who cannot bear it.
  - nerdponx 4y ago
    Good luck making that stand. Hopefully the Supreme Court will hear the case!
x86x87 4y ago
So if you're filming from 20 ft away and a cop walks towards to and yells at you to stop you can film until he's precisely 8 ft away, right? What if you have a line of cops holding hands and forming a 10ft radius around you? Can you film? What if they start rotating and stepping in and out? The law is dumb and redundant (you can get in trouble for interfering just fine with the laws on the books today). This is plain and simple intimidation.
- jm20 4y ago
  In what ridiculous scenario are cops forming a prayer circle around you? I’d assume in that made up world you’d become party to the police interaction and able to continue to film.
  - coeneedell 4y ago
    It’s not too different from “kettling” tactics.
  - heavyset_go 4y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kettling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kettling
- adamdusty 4y ago
  Yes you could film in both of those situations. The law specifically lists law enforcement activities as making an arrest, questioning suspects, and dealing with emotional situations (edit: specifically emotional or disturbed person exhibiting abnormal activity). Also, if you are part of the law enforcement activity, you are allowed to film. So yes, if a cop walks up to you yelling and you are at least 8ft from the law enforcement activity, you are legally allowed to film.
  - x86x87 4y ago
    > So yes, if a cop walks up to you yelling and you are at least 8ft from the law enforcement activity, you are legally allowed to film. Yeah, good luck arguing with a cop.
devwastaken 4y ago
It's not illigal for police to lie and tell you you can't record. Hundreds of examples on YouTube.
joshuamorton 4y ago
> Courts have already upheld routinely that police can ask people who are not party to the interaction to step away and they can create a reasonable area around them and the scene and keep people out of it. Can you cite said rulings? I can't find any on a cursory search. >Now we have a law that says 8 ft is a reasonable distance in Arizona. The law explicitly disclaims that it allows anyone to record police, so an officer is just as free as they were last year to claim that 50 feet is a reasonable distance for their safety.
braingenious 4y ago
This is an amazing pirouette of logic. I have one simple question: Under this law, is it legal (not suggested, a good idea, etc. just literally legal) to observe the police from within 8ft without filming? If the answer is yes, then this law exists strictly to stop documentation of police (mis)conduct.
mertd 4y ago
> If you are party to the police interaction you can film closer than 8 ft. If you are in a car as a passenger you can film the interaction and the police cannot ask you to stop. If you are a non-party person simply watching the interaction the police can now ask you to maintain a distance of 8 ft. Maybe there are different versions going around? The text pasted here suggests even if you are a party to the interaction, police can claim filming is interfering and ask you to stop it.
nerdponx 4y ago
That is absolutely not what the law says and that is not what the law does. https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/laws/0376.pdf https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/laws/0376.pdf The law specifically singles out making video. It does not establish a general boundary for the definition of interference. The law was obviously written in bad faith, and you are just rationalizing it.
dredmorbius 4y ago
If the issue is proximity to police for safety reasons, then whether or not a persion is videoing the incident has absolutely no bearing on the matter. This also means that a person who is directly the subject of a police encounter can be found to be violating the law for the simple act of recording the encounter. There's no provision for this within the text of the law. The law as it stands is a prima facie first amendment violation.

watwut 4y ago

Police can tell you to step away whether you are holding the camera or not. The thing this does is that people who are close to what is actually happening will be scared to take camera and start filming. And if they do, the cops will be able to harass them.

account-5 4y ago

Thanks for the calm and reasonable response. Some of the comments here make me wonder how close people want to be to an ongoing incident? Inches? A foot? At a certain distance you're just in the way, 8 feet seems completely acceptable. Police are able to do their job without obstruction from onlookers, onlockers are close enough to see/record the police doing their job.

staticassertion 4y ago
As close as I want to be, if it's a public space.
- account-5 4y ago
  Maybe you could get a piggyback from the cops while they're dealing with something?
  - staticassertion 4y ago
    That would be assault.

plandis 4y ago

This law only serves to tell police how close they need to move towards people filming in order to get them to stop so their abuses can be done without being recorded.

ksaj 4y ago
I think an officer approaching you makes you party to the interaction. I wouldn't shut mine off in this case, and I'd happily face court if an officer approached me while simultaneously claiming I'm not party to the interaction. The officer's approach to my person is the only the interaction I'm videoing at that moment. Anything else is incidental.
- calabin 4y ago
  I think that one major issue here is that while you and I likely have the time and other resources to go fight something like this if it were to occur, many of the people for whom this law will be most relevant (areas where the most police activity occurs are often in impoverished areas) do not have that same luxury. If you're barely scrapping by on an hourly job, and then get picked up or fined for this, oftentimes your only option is to accept the plea so you can get out of the courtroom and try to get back to work. This law serves to provide a means for the police to place that burden on people who cannot bear it.
- nerdponx 4y ago
  Good luck making that stand. Hopefully the Supreme Court will hear the case!

x86x87 4y ago

So if you're filming from 20 ft away and a cop walks towards to and yells at you to stop you can film until he's precisely 8 ft away, right? What if you have a line of cops holding hands and forming a 10ft radius around you? Can you film? What if they start rotating and stepping in and out? The law is dumb and redundant (you can get in trouble for interfering just fine with the laws on the books today). This is plain and simple intimidation.

jm20 4y ago
In what ridiculous scenario are cops forming a prayer circle around you? I’d assume in that made up world you’d become party to the police interaction and able to continue to film.
- coeneedell 4y ago
  It’s not too different from “kettling” tactics.
- heavyset_go 4y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kettling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kettling
adamdusty 4y ago
Yes you could film in both of those situations. The law specifically lists law enforcement activities as making an arrest, questioning suspects, and dealing with emotional situations (edit: specifically emotional or disturbed person exhibiting abnormal activity). Also, if you are part of the law enforcement activity, you are allowed to film. So yes, if a cop walks up to you yelling and you are at least 8ft from the law enforcement activity, you are legally allowed to film.
- x86x87 4y ago
  > So yes, if a cop walks up to you yelling and you are at least 8ft from the law enforcement activity, you are legally allowed to film. Yeah, good luck arguing with a cop.

devwastaken 4y ago

It's not illigal for police to lie and tell you you can't record. Hundreds of examples on YouTube.

joshuamorton 4y ago

> Courts have already upheld routinely that police can ask people who are not party to the interaction to step away and they can create a reasonable area around them and the scene and keep people out of it. Can you cite said rulings? I can't find any on a cursory search. >Now we have a law that says 8 ft is a reasonable distance in Arizona. The law explicitly disclaims that it allows anyone to record police, so an officer is just as free as they were last year to claim that 50 feet is a reasonable distance for their safety.

braingenious 4y ago

This is an amazing pirouette of logic. I have one simple question: Under this law, is it legal (not suggested, a good idea, etc. just literally legal) to observe the police from within 8ft without filming? If the answer is yes, then this law exists strictly to stop documentation of police (mis)conduct.

mertd 4y ago

> If you are party to the police interaction you can film closer than 8 ft. If you are in a car as a passenger you can film the interaction and the police cannot ask you to stop. If you are a non-party person simply watching the interaction the police can now ask you to maintain a distance of 8 ft. Maybe there are different versions going around? The text pasted here suggests even if you are a party to the interaction, police can claim filming is interfering and ask you to stop it.

nerdponx 4y ago

That is absolutely not what the law says and that is not what the law does. https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/laws/0376.pdf https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/laws/0376.pdf The law specifically singles out making video. It does not establish a general boundary for the definition of interference. The law was obviously written in bad faith, and you are just rationalizing it.

dredmorbius 4y ago

If the issue is proximity to police for safety reasons, then whether or not a persion is videoing the incident has absolutely no bearing on the matter. This also means that a person who is directly the subject of a police encounter can be found to be violating the law for the simple act of recording the encounter. There's no provision for this within the text of the law. The law as it stands is a prima facie first amendment violation.