8 ms·

This sounds good; a citizen can now refer to The Law(tm) and keep filming any police encounter with the general population from a distance of 8ft. I enjoy yell

• Raed667 4y ago
  until the police starts charging at you and now you're under 8ft.
  • elmerfud 4y ago
    If the police begin to charge at you because you are recording you now become party to the police interaction and you can record under the 8-ft distance. I know on emotional issues like police interactions logic is hard to follow but logic is still a thing.
    • etchalon 4y ago
      The idea that the police will follow the letter of the law during an interaction seems naive given what we've seen of police behavior.
    • macksd 4y ago
      Logic didn't seem to have been a thing in the Daniel Shaver shooting, which happened in this state. I thought the bodycam footage was a pretty clear illustration of a terrified and confused unarmed victim doing his best to follow unclear instructions being shot by a cop who, in the end, clearly had some facts wrong. And the cop was then acquitted, got re-hired and given a pension because he had a disabling case of PTSD from the incident. Imagine what a state like that could get away with if video wasn't even public, or how easily a cop could get away with intimidating people who are even 8+ feet away. I wouldn't be quick to trust this law if I lived in Arizona and tended to be harassed by police.
    • BoorishBears 4y ago
      I would consider it barely logical to think the cop approaching you specifically so they can claim you're in the way of their operations and gain an excuse to stop your filming (https://youtu.be/VWHOz5sLk-c https://youtu.be/VWHOz5sLk-c https://youtu.be/L7lHeRBgs9U https://youtu.be/L7lHeRBgs9U https://youtu.be/HEL8CdV9HUQ https://youtu.be/HEL8CdV9HUQ) would suddenly stop because: "Whelp now they're a part of this police interaction [as I intended] so I should respect their rights [which me approaching them was an attempt to interfere with]" The current MO is: - Cop approaches someone recording - Proceed to apply psuedo-legal pressure because you're now "too close" to a cop (who approached you to begin). And you actually think that a law that replaces a murky step two with "You can't film within 8ft of us" is an upgrade? You actually think the cop informing you you can't film them will take the law they approached you to enforce as a reason to leave you alone? - There's something beautiful yet dangerously naive about the kind of people who have this much good faith in how police leverage the law. Sorry but even the "good cops" are not about to use the law to expand your rights.
    • chadcatlett 4y ago
      All they need to do is claim you are interfering with their law enforcement activity and they can say you can't record your own interaction.
    • staticassertion 4y ago
      Except when you were recording you weren't party to the police interaction. So you were breaking the law. Can you follow that logic?
• chrsig 4y ago
  no, the default is that it's legal to film within 8 ft of police. All laws are inherently restrictive.
  • mattmaroon 4y ago
    They really aren’t unless you have an incomplete model of how the legal system works. This is a good example of this. There is no default. Court cases have upheld that it is legal for cops to establish a safety perimeter, even when that distance is undefined. Thus a cop could argue that the necessary safe distance is an arbitrary number like 25 feet or 50 feet. This law defines it as 8, potentially giving you greater freedom. The legal system as a whole is inherently restrictive, but individual laws within it may be otherwise.
    • mlyle 4y ago
      > This law defines it as 8, potentially giving you greater freedom. No, this law establishes a new crime and penalty for being closer than 8 feet, without precluding enforcement under other laws: " C. THIS SECTION DOES NOT ESTABLISH A RIGHT OR AUTHORIZE ANY PERSON TO MAKE A VIDEO RECORDING OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY. " https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/HB2319S.pdf https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/HB2319S.pdf
      • matheusmoreira 4y ago
        It's funny. Authorities can surveil the entire globe with complete impunity but the second citizens start surveilling them all sorts of laws are passed making it illegal. Sousveillance should be a right of every single citizen. This right should be established and authorized.
        • justinpowers 4y ago
          “Sousveillance”, as a term, was new to me. In case it’s new to anyone else: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sousveillance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sousveillance https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18493797 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18493797
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• ajaimk 4y ago
  The loophole for the cops is that they can walk towards you and claim you are within 8 feet.
  • logicalmonster 4y ago
    I get this possibility. The potential problem for the police that I’ve seen is that when there’s an arrest from some resisting person and a sympathetic crowd gathers around to record and voice some words of protest, it’s a chaotic situation. You have people going crazy hooting and hollering and it’s a bad situation to be in even if the cops are 100% doing the right thing by the book. I don’t know what’s the right distance, but I get that cops want to maintain some distance from crowds so they’re not swarmed. In the end, I don’t know what can be done other than mandating personal recording equipment that can’t physically be switched off.
    • johnhenry 4y ago
      > even if the cops are 100% doing the right thing by the book Public scrutiny is only as issue for those who don't want to be publicly scrutinized. If they are doing the right thing, they should have not problem. They don't want to be scrutinized because they are 100% NOT doing the right thing by the book.
      • 8n4vidtmkvmk 4y ago
        this is dangerously close to saying you don't need privacy if you have nothing to hide. the public doesn't know the full situation, they don't have police training, the video might be cut or not capture everything the police saw/heard. police should be held accountable for sure, but we need to let them do their jobs without villainizing everything they do.
        • vkou 4y ago
          > this is dangerously close to saying you don't need privacy if you have nothing to hide. We empower police to harass, detain, and use deadly force against the public. This power has to be counterbalanced by accountability. If the way they use that power cannot stand up against public scrutiny, then they shouldn't have it. > but we need to let them do their jobs without villainizing everything they do. We wouldn't do that if they didn't so consistently fail at doing their jobs, or at being held accountable for those failures.
• woodruffw 4y ago
  In the US, you have a constitutional right to record the police. This law attempts to limit the bounds of that right, making it strictly more limited than before. In other words: it was already the law. This is an attempt to limit civic participation and oversight, and to disempower citizens.
  • mytailorisrich 4y ago
    From the article itself it is not clear whether the law applies to absolutely all filming or only filming by third parties. Edit: yes, I meant bystanders.
    • woodruffw 4y ago
      Assuming by “third party” you mean bystanders: yes, the law only applies to them. That’s one of many reasons why the law is absurd: the police already have (more than) adequate legal cover to deal with interference in their activities. They don’t need a law that specifically carves recording out for punishment, unless the real goal is to stifle civic participation.
      • throwbigdata 4y ago
        I don’t see language that excludes personal interactions with LE ; help me understand?
        • woodruffw 4y ago
          Item B of the amended law[1]: > notwithstanding subsection A of this section, a person who is the subject of police contact may record the encounter if the person is not interfering with lawful police actions, including searching, handcuffing or administering a field sobriety test. The occupants of a vehicle that is the subject of a police stop may record the encounter if the occupants are not interfering with lawful police actions. In other words this law targets bystanders, i.e. concerned fellow citizens. It probably does this to avoid the trivial standing that recording as a bystander offers, meaning that the limitation there is more of "we think we can get away with this" and less "we think this is the right stopping point." [1]: https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/laws/0376.htm https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/laws/0376.htm
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• staticassertion 4y ago
  That's not going to work. a) The police don't give a shit about the law, nor are they required to know it b) They'll just walk towards you, say you're breaking the law for filming, break your phone, beat the shit out of you and/or shoot you c) It was always legal to do so. Now it isn't.
  • Clubber 4y ago
    Yes this is my read. When dealing with police and regulating them in some of these really bad departments (Lovelace, CO, I'm looking at you, but LA, NY, any major city), you have to assume they will think of anything to get around the regulations, do whatever they want, and cover their ass. Right now it's so blatant, they know they're being recorded and still violate civil rights, and still only get a paid vacation as punishment most of the time, if that. We need to start holding the mayors accountable for police misdeeds as much as the police themselves.
• bufferoverflow 4y ago
  It doesn't sound good. It's a law restricting something very important - ability to record people who were granted special powers, including killing. I don't understand the reasoning. Anything in public and anything visible from public areas should be allowed to be recorded.
• simonbarker87 4y ago
  I assume you’ve missunderstood the ramifications of this. Traffic stops are all within 8 feet, this means that no traffic stop can be filmed in Arizona, many people get assaulted or killed by police in traffic stops. If the police are within 8 feet of you then they are able to assault you and claim you attacked them and any recording you have won’t legally count even if it shows the policeman is lying. This law helps on group of people, police. Specifically, dirty police. A good police officer would say “I see you’re filming and I’m happy for you to keep filming even if we have to come within 8 feet”
  • frognumber 4y ago
    The law doesn't say that. If you're involved with the police, you can film from whatever distance. Unrelated parties need to be at least 8 feet away. This sounds super-reasonable to me. 8 feet is close enough to capture what's going on, but far enough to not interfere or escalate in a situation. In a tense situation, it's not always easy to tell who might or might not be a danger to the police officer. This seems to set a reasonable bound which avoids accidents or incidents. Arrests are tense situations. Imagine you're a police officer arresting a dangerous criminal, and their friend comes within 3 feet. They're filming you. You don't know if they're an accomplice or not. What do you do? Now, it's easy. 8 feet away is okay.
    • el_benhameen 4y ago
      In a tense situation, it’s also not always easy to judge distance. Do you think a cop who doesn’t want to be filmed is going to whip out a tape measure or just start smacking around the videographer and say they were 7’ 11” away?
    • lovehashbrowns 4y ago
      It's not easy because now you can be arrested for filming the police encounter and who's gonna say you were more than 8ft away from the interaction? You, of course. But then it's your word against the police officer's word, and (1) police are willing to lie, and (2) the words of a police officer almost always carry more weight in a court proceeding. This doesn't actually change anything because if you're intending to interfere with a police interaction, you're going to interfere with a police interaction. That's already illegal. Nothing changes. If you're only intending to record the interaction, you now have this stupid law to worry about. More of our rights being restricted, with people applauding it under the guise of police safety. Also, keep in mind that police in the US already have vast protections like qualified immunity, safety and weapons training, they're armed, and they have a legal right to violence. I don't understand what sorts of protections they're desperately in need of.
• plandis 4y ago
  This was already a right, this law just gives police an ability to harass people filming them if they so desire.
• calabin 4y ago
  This does exactly the opposite of that. Reading the text of the bill, every part of it, especially Section (B), is couched in the principle of "not interfering." For Example: "A PERSON WHO IS THE SUBJECT OF POLICE CONTACT MAY RECORD THE ENCOUNTER IF THE PERSON IS NOT INTERFERING WITH LAWFUL POLICE ACTIONS" So if a police officer determines that your recording of a traffic stop is "interfering" with their investigation, that it's causing you to cooperate too slowly, that your holding up the phone is limiting their ability to see into the vehicle, etc., they're well within the law to instruct and even force you to stop recording. While a court may find that their determination of "interference" was insufficient, and that they were wrong to take your phone or arrest you for refusing to stop recording, it will be a determination made after you were arrested or fined or your phone was confiscated. It produces a chilling effect on the ability of citizens to record the police, and gives police more law to throw at citizens to try and intimidate them into not recording their activity. https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/laws/0376.pdf https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/laws/0376.pdf