4 ms·
I DO NOT agree with the other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32046231 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32046231 deleted! And boy did I hav
by ddingus 4y ago
I DO NOT agree with the other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32046231 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32046231
deleted! And boy did I have this wrong!! (This comment has been edited to show the text, and where I was in error!)
Here's the text:
ARIZONA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Fifty-fifth Legislature Second Regular Session House: APPROP DPA 7-5-0-1
HB 2319: law enforcement activity; recording prohibition Sponsor: Representative Kavanagh, LD 23 House Engrossed
Overview
Outlines regulations for a person making a video recording (recording) of a law enforcement activity (activity).
History
Provisions
1. States that it is unlawful for a person to knowingly make a recording within eight feet of an activity and without the permission of a law enforcement officer (LEO). (Sec. 1)
2. Directs that for an activity occurring inside a closed structure on private property, a person authorized to be on the private property may make a video recording of the activity from an adjacent room that is less than eight feet away from the activity. (Sec. 1)
3. States a person may not make a video recording of an activity from within eight feet of an activity inside a closed structure on private property if the LEO determines the person is interfering with the activity or that is it not safe to be in the area. (Sec. 1)
4. Provides that a person who is the subject of the police contact may make a recording if doing so does not interfere with lawful police actions. (Sec. 1)
5. Asserts these provisions do not establish a right or authorize any person to make a video recording of an activity. (Sec. 1)
6. Classifies unlawfully recording an activity as a petty offense. (Sec. 1)
7. Classifies failing to comply with LEO verbal warnings regarding recording an activity or if the person has been previously convicted of unlawfully recording an activity as a class 3 misdemeanor (Sec. 1)
Statute prohibits a person from obstructing governmental operations. A person commits obstructing governmental operations when the person uses threats or violence to hinder a peace officer from enforcing the law or acting under official authority. This offense is classified as a class
1 misdemeanor (A.R.S. 13-2402).
8. Defines law enforcement activity. (Sec. 1)
Prop 105 (45 votes) Prop 108 (40 votes) Emergency (40 votes) Initials FK Page 1
Fiscal Note
HB 2319 House Engrossed
>and without the permission of a law enforcement officer (LEO). (Sec. 1)
That language is not in the stories talking about the bill, and said language is not in line with the First Amendment.
- mlyle 4y agoI'm not sure why you think this law explicitly allows people to be 8' away and film. Instead, it criminalizes being closer than 8' and filming, while not superseding other laws that could be used to harass or prevent recording. An explicit codification of the right to record and circumstances when it applies could be part of a decent compromise here, but this legislation isn't it.
- gambiting 4y agoBecause previously, the cop could define their personal "safety zone" as literally whatever - 20ft? 50ft? It wasn't defined in the law. Now it is - it's 8ft. If you're further away than 8ft then it cannot be argued that your filming was unlawful.
- mlyle 4y agoThis isn't true-- any existing laws that could have been employed at 15' can still be employed at 15'. They have not been superseded or repealed. There's a new misdemeanor for 8' or less.
- ddingus 4y agoI agree with this and had not considered the legislation in this light.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- ddingus 4y ago>and without the permission of a law enforcement officer (LEO). (Sec. 1) I went to the original text, pasted here. That language is NOT OK. This law does NOT explicitly allow.
- staticassertion 4y ago> This is likely to strengthen the ability for people to document policing. God I hope this is the stupidest thing I read today.