3 ms·
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.
by 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 agoAssuming 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 agoI don’t see language that excludes personal interactions with LE ; help me understand?
- woodruffw 4y agoItem 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
- throwbigdata 4y agoThanks