5 ms·

Sounds like a reasonable enough statement to me. If nobody is getting up close to cops while they're involved with a suspect then it won't be an issue. But we a

Sounds like a reasonable enough statement to me. If nobody is getting up close to cops while they're involved with a suspect then it won't be an issue. But we all know there a bunch of people out there who lack the sense to not keep a reasonable distance and this law will cover those instances.

notch656a 4y ago
I don't see a law enforcement carve-out. By my reading a fellow cop with a body camera getting next to another cop enforcing the law would result in their violation of this law. Wonder if you can citizen's arrest a police officer for violating this law.
- decremental 4y ago
  Except laws aren't interpreted and enforced with autistic rigidity.
  - notch656a 4y ago
    The law should be applied equally. In fact the equal protections clause of the 14th amendment could invalidate prosecution of laws not applied uniformly.
    - kqr 4y ago
      Sure, but what matters for your personal security is not what the book says, but what the men with the weapons think the book says.
      - notch656a 4y ago
        In Arizona the proportion of those with weapons is overwhelmingly the general populace and not the police.
- loopdoend 4y ago
  Go try arresting one of them and let me know how that goes for you.
  - notch656a 4y ago
    The world would be a better place if criminal cops were held accountable.
x86x87 4y ago
Which one is the problem? People not keeping a reasonable distance or... cops on a powertrip that now have another tool to fork with your rights?
sparker72678 4y ago
This law creates a situation where police can just keep walking toward someone filming, demanding that they stop. This is absolutely a tactic that will immediately be used by police to interfere with filming and attempt to prevent video evidence from being used against them.
- koolba 4y ago
  That reminds me of cops playing copyright music so that videos would get auto-DMCA off YouTube. I doubt that one would fly. If you have the video of them doing that then presumably a jury of your peers or any sane DA would throw out that case. And if you don’t, then you weren’t recording them right?
  - sebzim4500 4y ago
    Charges can fuck up your life even if you are eventually found not guilty.
woodruffw 4y ago
The rest of the comment below the quote explains the manipulation: Kavanagh is implying that law enforcement lacks the tools to deal with that kind of interference, when the reality is that they have ample preexisting authority to arrest anyone who actually does interfere with them. This law attempts to turn an innocent and passive civic action into a kind of interference, which is absurd on face value. If a person is actually interfering with the cops and just so happens to be recording while they do it, the law already allows the cops to arrest them.
- brailsafe 4y ago
  Innocent and passive if you aren't basically just trying to get internet points for being a hero, which some people definitely are. Anecdotally, I've seen someone walk past an arrest in which the causal factor had already been eliminated, then started filming too closely and attempting to berate officers about how to handle the person. She was basically an opposite Karen, definitely getting in the way, but I'd wager that most cops aren't in the business of wanting to make secondary pointless arrests
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    If they feel like they were interfered with, then they could have arrested that person for interference. The law already explicitly admits that case. The presence of a recording device is, at best, purely immaterial. Criminalizing the act of recording has no bearing on the thing that they’re claiming needs to be criminalized, and in fact already is.
    - brailsafe 4y ago
      I guess I have a more charitable view of cops' intentions. Police don't want to make more arrests than necessary, so I can see how there would be argument to me made to discourage people from testing that.
  - codegeek 4y ago
    You are missing the point. A law like this gives Bad Cops the power to basically stop anyone from recording. All they have to do is to walk towards that person and reduce the distance. Good cops will ignore but the Shitty ones that are on a Powertrip will absolutely abuse this. THe point is that there already are laws related to interfering with Police business and this was not needed. This is nothing but an attempt at violating a Citizen's right. Btw, there is nothing illegal about being a hero/idiot to get internet points. As much as some people are idiots, their rights should not be infringed upon if they are not interfering with Police business directly. This law makes it a lot harder to even risk recording at all because you never know if you are safe to do so.
staticassertion 4y ago
Remember that this is Arizona, a known shithole state. Whatever interpretation of this law that you're using to paint it in a softer light, understand that it's not coming from a place of "let's help police protect people".
- goldenkey 4y ago
  The Arizona PD are courteous and I've never had problems with them unlike the LAPD who tortured and nearly killed me 12 years ago. Marijuana is legal in AZ, and the wildlife is protected, even plants. It's illegal to cut down cactuses. Firearms are legal which means you have the freedom to protect yourself from violent assailants. Free health care (medicaid) is really good there, such that you can see all the specialists you might need. Why do you call it a shithole state? Having lived in 5 states including NY and CA, I'd call those two shitholes before I called AZ a shithole.
  - stirfish 4y ago
    I don't know if I'd call Arizona a shit hole (I've never been), but it did have the worst racial profiling under Sheriff Arpaio. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/us-department-justice-files-lawsuit-against-arizonas-racial-profiling-law https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/us-department-justice-fi...
    - goldenkey 4y ago
      In CA, it was Sheriff Bacca. Literally part of a Neo-Nazi gang: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynwood_Vikings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynwood_Vikings Got nailed after his officers tried to kill an FBI agent who was investigating prison abuse. https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/former-la-county-sheriff-lee-baca-found-guilty-orchestrating-scheme-obstruct-federal https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/former-la-county-sherif... With AZ, there was a big issue with prison abuse ie. "Tent Prison" [1] All I can speak to is my experiences, all of this is really shitty. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maricopa_County_Sheriff%27s_Office_controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maricopa_County_Sheriff%27s_Of...
codegeek 4y ago
"If nobody is getting up close to cops" Someone is recording a Cop 20 feet away. THe cop notices them, doesn't like it and starts walking towards that person thereby reducing the distance and once they hit less than 8 feet, boom it is illegal even though the person did not move. This is what will happen when someone is recording a Cop and the Cop is pissed at them. Now what ?
- zimpenfish 4y ago
  "IF THE PERSON MAKING THE VIDEO RECORDING IS WITHIN EIGHT FEET OF WHERE THE PERSON KNOWS OR REASONABLY SHOULD KNOW THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY IS OCCURRING" A cop walking toward them from 20ft away won't shift the locus of the law enforcement activity (unless he's dragging the prisoner, I suppose) and this should be ruled out as infringement - it would be a ridiculous stretch to say "the mere presence of a cop means law enforcement activity is occurring".
  - suzzer99 4y ago
    Law enforcement activity is so vague it can be wherever the cop says it is.
  - TOMDM 4y ago
    It seems pretty reasonable that a court will decide that "a law enforcement activity" isn't a single point in space but an area that encompasses the situation. From there it's a pretty reasonable expectation that all involved officers are included in that area. Unless you think it really is just a singular point in which case any large situation makes the distance restriction meaningless...
    - zimpenfish 4y ago
      > "a law enforcement activity" isn't a single point in space but an area that encompasses the situation Obviously it's an area but ... > it's a pretty reasonable expectation that all involved officers are included in that area That doesn't necessarily follow - 2 cops arresting someone whilst 10 are on, say, crowd or traffic control shouldn't include those 10 cops in the LEA because they're not part of the "activity", per se, but supporting actors, no? Same goes for one that wanders away from the arrest - they're no longer an active participant and can't be included in the "activity", surely? (Now, I agree, the courts might well say "wherever cops are is a LEA" but I don't think they'd get away with it without shenanigans like SCOTUS.)
devwastaken 4y ago
It's already illigal to interfere in police business. You can do this through many mean, not just being within 8ft filming. By lowering the bar for interference the government can now argue that anyone in 8ft for any reason cannot film. It's also in violation of the 1st amendment, as many of these pro-policing laws tend to be.
- saltminer 4y ago
  And given that the police can use laws that don't exist as probable cause which leads to an arrest and conviction [0], I don't think it's unrealistic to expect cops to say "well I thought [the guy filming me from 30 ft away] was too close" to justify an arrest. Sure, you might be found innocent (on the filming charge), but that's not the point - the cops wanted to stop you from filming, and they won. They might have even seized your phone and deleted the footage, and you have no recourse thanks to qualified immunity [1]. Just you getting thrown in jail and missing work could mean getting fired, being unable to make rent, getting evicted, etc. It creates a chilling effect, which is exactly what they want. > It's also in violation of the 1st amendment, as many of these pro-policing laws tend to be. It is, but sadly, SCOTUS will likely find some insane argument to uphold it. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heien_v._North_Carolina https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heien_v._North_Carolina [1]: https://eji.org/issues/qualified-immunity/ https://eji.org/issues/qualified-immunity/
BrainVirus 4y ago
I looked up the text of the (original) bill: 6 A. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON TO KNOWINGLY MAKE A VIDEO RECORDING 7 OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY, INCLUDING THE HANDLING OF AN EMOTIONALLY 8 DISTURBED PERSON, IF THE PERSON MAKING THE VIDEO RECORDING DOES NOT HAVE 9 THE PERMISSION OF A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER AND IS WITHIN FIFTEEN FEET OF 10 WHERE THE LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY IS OCCURRING. IF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT 11 ACTIVITY IS OCCURRING IN AN ENCLOSED STRUCTURE THAT IS ON PRIVATE 12 PROPERTY, A PERSON WHO IS AUTHORIZED TO BE ON THE PRIVATE PROPERTY MAY 13 MAKE A VIDEO RECORDING OF THE ACTIVITY FROM AN ADJACENT ROOM OR AREA THAT 14 IS LESS THAN FIFTEEN FEET AWAY FROM WHERE THE ACTIVITY IS OCCURRING, 15 UNLESS A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER DETERMINES THAT THE PERSON IS INTERFERING 16 IN THE LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY OR THAT IT IS NOT SAFE TO BE IN THE AREA 17 AND ORDERS THE PERSON TO STOP RECORDING OR TO LEAVE THE AREA. 18 B. THIS SECTION DOES NOT ESTABLISH A RIGHT OR AUTHORIZE ANY PERSON 19 TO MAKE A VIDEO RECORDING OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY. 20 C. A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS A PETTY OFFENSE, EXCEPT THAT IF 21 THE PERSON FAILS TO COMPLY WITH A VERBAL WARNING OF A VIOLATION OF THIS 22 SECTION OR HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN CONVICTED OF A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION, 23 IT IS A CLASS 3 MISDEMEANOR. https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/HB2319P.htm https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/HB2319P.htm Given its text, I do not find the original statement reasonable at all. Simply recording police from 7 feet and not immediately stopping when a cop tells you to is a misdemeanor. This is crazy and has little to do with protecting reasonable police activity.
- sparker72678 4y ago
  That's an early version of the bill. The final version [^1]: A. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON TO KNOWINGLY MAKE A VIDEO RECORDING OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY IF THE PERSON MAKING THE VIDEO RECORDING IS WITHIN EIGHT FEET OF WHERE THE PERSON KNOWS OR REASONABLY SHOULD KNOW THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY IS OCCURRING, EITHER RECEIVES OR HAS PREVIOUSLY RECEIVED A VERBAL WARNING FROM A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER THAT THE PERSON IS PROHIBITED FROM MAKING A VIDEO RECORDING OF A LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY WITHIN EIGHT FEET OF THE ACTIVITY AND CONTINUES TO MAKE A VIDEO RECORDING OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY WITHIN EIGHT FEET OF THE ACTIVITY. IF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY IS OCCURRING IN AN ENCLOSED STRUCTURE THAT IS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY, A PERSON WHO IS AUTHORIZED TO BE ON THE PRIVATE PROPERTY MAY MAKE A VIDEO RECORDING OF THE ACTIVITY FROM AN ADJACENT ROOM OR AREA THAT IS LESS THAN EIGHT FEET AWAY FROM WHERE THE ACTIVITY IS OCCURRING, UNLESS A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER DETERMINES THAT THE PERSON IS INTERFERING IN THE LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY OR THAT IT IS NOT SAFE TO BE IN THE AREA AND ORDERS THE PERSON TO LEAVE THE AREA. B. 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. C. THIS SECTION DOES NOT ESTABLISH A RIGHT OR AUTHORIZE ANY PERSON TO MAKE A VIDEO RECORDING OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY. D. A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS A CLASS 3 MISDEMEANOR. E. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, "LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY" MEANS ANY OF THE FOLLOWING: 1. QUESTIONING A SUSPICIOUS PERSON. 2. CONDUCTING AN ARREST, ISSUING A SUMMONS OR ENFORCING THE LAW. 3. HANDLING AN EMOTIONALLY DISTURBED OR DISORDERLY PERSON WHO IS EXHIBITING ABNORMAL BEHAVIOR. [1]: https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/laws/0376.htm https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/laws/0376.htm

notch656a 4y ago

I don't see a law enforcement carve-out. By my reading a fellow cop with a body camera getting next to another cop enforcing the law would result in their violation of this law. Wonder if you can citizen's arrest a police officer for violating this law.

decremental 4y ago
Except laws aren't interpreted and enforced with autistic rigidity.
- notch656a 4y ago
  The law should be applied equally. In fact the equal protections clause of the 14th amendment could invalidate prosecution of laws not applied uniformly.
  - kqr 4y ago
    Sure, but what matters for your personal security is not what the book says, but what the men with the weapons think the book says.
    - notch656a 4y ago
      In Arizona the proportion of those with weapons is overwhelmingly the general populace and not the police.
loopdoend 4y ago
Go try arresting one of them and let me know how that goes for you.
- notch656a 4y ago
  The world would be a better place if criminal cops were held accountable.

x86x87 4y ago

Which one is the problem? People not keeping a reasonable distance or... cops on a powertrip that now have another tool to fork with your rights?

sparker72678 4y ago

This law creates a situation where police can just keep walking toward someone filming, demanding that they stop. This is absolutely a tactic that will immediately be used by police to interfere with filming and attempt to prevent video evidence from being used against them.

koolba 4y ago
That reminds me of cops playing copyright music so that videos would get auto-DMCA off YouTube. I doubt that one would fly. If you have the video of them doing that then presumably a jury of your peers or any sane DA would throw out that case. And if you don’t, then you weren’t recording them right?
- sebzim4500 4y ago
  Charges can fuck up your life even if you are eventually found not guilty.

woodruffw 4y ago

The rest of the comment below the quote explains the manipulation: Kavanagh is implying that law enforcement lacks the tools to deal with that kind of interference, when the reality is that they have ample preexisting authority to arrest anyone who actually does interfere with them. This law attempts to turn an innocent and passive civic action into a kind of interference, which is absurd on face value. If a person is actually interfering with the cops and just so happens to be recording while they do it, the law already allows the cops to arrest them.

brailsafe 4y ago
Innocent and passive if you aren't basically just trying to get internet points for being a hero, which some people definitely are. Anecdotally, I've seen someone walk past an arrest in which the causal factor had already been eliminated, then started filming too closely and attempting to berate officers about how to handle the person. She was basically an opposite Karen, definitely getting in the way, but I'd wager that most cops aren't in the business of wanting to make secondary pointless arrests
- woodruffw 4y ago
  If they feel like they were interfered with, then they could have arrested that person for interference. The law already explicitly admits that case. The presence of a recording device is, at best, purely immaterial. Criminalizing the act of recording has no bearing on the thing that they’re claiming needs to be criminalized, and in fact already is.
  - brailsafe 4y ago
    I guess I have a more charitable view of cops' intentions. Police don't want to make more arrests than necessary, so I can see how there would be argument to me made to discourage people from testing that.
- codegeek 4y ago
  You are missing the point. A law like this gives Bad Cops the power to basically stop anyone from recording. All they have to do is to walk towards that person and reduce the distance. Good cops will ignore but the Shitty ones that are on a Powertrip will absolutely abuse this. THe point is that there already are laws related to interfering with Police business and this was not needed. This is nothing but an attempt at violating a Citizen's right. Btw, there is nothing illegal about being a hero/idiot to get internet points. As much as some people are idiots, their rights should not be infringed upon if they are not interfering with Police business directly. This law makes it a lot harder to even risk recording at all because you never know if you are safe to do so.

staticassertion 4y ago

Remember that this is Arizona, a known shithole state. Whatever interpretation of this law that you're using to paint it in a softer light, understand that it's not coming from a place of "let's help police protect people".

goldenkey 4y ago
The Arizona PD are courteous and I've never had problems with them unlike the LAPD who tortured and nearly killed me 12 years ago. Marijuana is legal in AZ, and the wildlife is protected, even plants. It's illegal to cut down cactuses. Firearms are legal which means you have the freedom to protect yourself from violent assailants. Free health care (medicaid) is really good there, such that you can see all the specialists you might need. Why do you call it a shithole state? Having lived in 5 states including NY and CA, I'd call those two shitholes before I called AZ a shithole.
- stirfish 4y ago
  I don't know if I'd call Arizona a shit hole (I've never been), but it did have the worst racial profiling under Sheriff Arpaio. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/us-department-justice-files-lawsuit-against-arizonas-racial-profiling-law https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/us-department-justice-fi...
  - goldenkey 4y ago
    In CA, it was Sheriff Bacca. Literally part of a Neo-Nazi gang: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynwood_Vikings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynwood_Vikings Got nailed after his officers tried to kill an FBI agent who was investigating prison abuse. https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/former-la-county-sheriff-lee-baca-found-guilty-orchestrating-scheme-obstruct-federal https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/former-la-county-sherif... With AZ, there was a big issue with prison abuse ie. "Tent Prison" [1] All I can speak to is my experiences, all of this is really shitty. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maricopa_County_Sheriff%27s_Office_controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maricopa_County_Sheriff%27s_Of...

codegeek 4y ago

"If nobody is getting up close to cops" Someone is recording a Cop 20 feet away. THe cop notices them, doesn't like it and starts walking towards that person thereby reducing the distance and once they hit less than 8 feet, boom it is illegal even though the person did not move. This is what will happen when someone is recording a Cop and the Cop is pissed at them. Now what ?

zimpenfish 4y ago
"IF THE PERSON MAKING THE VIDEO RECORDING IS WITHIN EIGHT FEET OF WHERE THE PERSON KNOWS OR REASONABLY SHOULD KNOW THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY IS OCCURRING" A cop walking toward them from 20ft away won't shift the locus of the law enforcement activity (unless he's dragging the prisoner, I suppose) and this should be ruled out as infringement - it would be a ridiculous stretch to say "the mere presence of a cop means law enforcement activity is occurring".
- suzzer99 4y ago
  Law enforcement activity is so vague it can be wherever the cop says it is.
- TOMDM 4y ago
  It seems pretty reasonable that a court will decide that "a law enforcement activity" isn't a single point in space but an area that encompasses the situation. From there it's a pretty reasonable expectation that all involved officers are included in that area. Unless you think it really is just a singular point in which case any large situation makes the distance restriction meaningless...
  - zimpenfish 4y ago
    > "a law enforcement activity" isn't a single point in space but an area that encompasses the situation Obviously it's an area but ... > it's a pretty reasonable expectation that all involved officers are included in that area That doesn't necessarily follow - 2 cops arresting someone whilst 10 are on, say, crowd or traffic control shouldn't include those 10 cops in the LEA because they're not part of the "activity", per se, but supporting actors, no? Same goes for one that wanders away from the arrest - they're no longer an active participant and can't be included in the "activity", surely? (Now, I agree, the courts might well say "wherever cops are is a LEA" but I don't think they'd get away with it without shenanigans like SCOTUS.)

devwastaken 4y ago

It's already illigal to interfere in police business. You can do this through many mean, not just being within 8ft filming. By lowering the bar for interference the government can now argue that anyone in 8ft for any reason cannot film. It's also in violation of the 1st amendment, as many of these pro-policing laws tend to be.

saltminer 4y ago
And given that the police can use laws that don't exist as probable cause which leads to an arrest and conviction [0], I don't think it's unrealistic to expect cops to say "well I thought [the guy filming me from 30 ft away] was too close" to justify an arrest. Sure, you might be found innocent (on the filming charge), but that's not the point - the cops wanted to stop you from filming, and they won. They might have even seized your phone and deleted the footage, and you have no recourse thanks to qualified immunity [1]. Just you getting thrown in jail and missing work could mean getting fired, being unable to make rent, getting evicted, etc. It creates a chilling effect, which is exactly what they want. > It's also in violation of the 1st amendment, as many of these pro-policing laws tend to be. It is, but sadly, SCOTUS will likely find some insane argument to uphold it. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heien_v._North_Carolina https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heien_v._North_Carolina [1]: https://eji.org/issues/qualified-immunity/ https://eji.org/issues/qualified-immunity/

BrainVirus 4y ago

I looked up the text of the (original) bill: 6 A. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON TO KNOWINGLY MAKE A VIDEO RECORDING 7 OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY, INCLUDING THE HANDLING OF AN EMOTIONALLY 8 DISTURBED PERSON, IF THE PERSON MAKING THE VIDEO RECORDING DOES NOT HAVE 9 THE PERMISSION OF A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER AND IS WITHIN FIFTEEN FEET OF 10 WHERE THE LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY IS OCCURRING. IF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT 11 ACTIVITY IS OCCURRING IN AN ENCLOSED STRUCTURE THAT IS ON PRIVATE 12 PROPERTY, A PERSON WHO IS AUTHORIZED TO BE ON THE PRIVATE PROPERTY MAY 13 MAKE A VIDEO RECORDING OF THE ACTIVITY FROM AN ADJACENT ROOM OR AREA THAT 14 IS LESS THAN FIFTEEN FEET AWAY FROM WHERE THE ACTIVITY IS OCCURRING, 15 UNLESS A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER DETERMINES THAT THE PERSON IS INTERFERING 16 IN THE LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY OR THAT IT IS NOT SAFE TO BE IN THE AREA 17 AND ORDERS THE PERSON TO STOP RECORDING OR TO LEAVE THE AREA. 18 B. THIS SECTION DOES NOT ESTABLISH A RIGHT OR AUTHORIZE ANY PERSON 19 TO MAKE A VIDEO RECORDING OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY. 20 C. A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS A PETTY OFFENSE, EXCEPT THAT IF 21 THE PERSON FAILS TO COMPLY WITH A VERBAL WARNING OF A VIOLATION OF THIS 22 SECTION OR HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN CONVICTED OF A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION, 23 IT IS A CLASS 3 MISDEMEANOR. https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/HB2319P.htm https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/HB2319P.htm Given its text, I do not find the original statement reasonable at all. Simply recording police from 7 feet and not immediately stopping when a cop tells you to is a misdemeanor. This is crazy and has little to do with protecting reasonable police activity.

sparker72678 4y ago
That's an early version of the bill. The final version [^1]: A. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON TO KNOWINGLY MAKE A VIDEO RECORDING OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY IF THE PERSON MAKING THE VIDEO RECORDING IS WITHIN EIGHT FEET OF WHERE THE PERSON KNOWS OR REASONABLY SHOULD KNOW THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY IS OCCURRING, EITHER RECEIVES OR HAS PREVIOUSLY RECEIVED A VERBAL WARNING FROM A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER THAT THE PERSON IS PROHIBITED FROM MAKING A VIDEO RECORDING OF A LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY WITHIN EIGHT FEET OF THE ACTIVITY AND CONTINUES TO MAKE A VIDEO RECORDING OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY WITHIN EIGHT FEET OF THE ACTIVITY. IF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY IS OCCURRING IN AN ENCLOSED STRUCTURE THAT IS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY, A PERSON WHO IS AUTHORIZED TO BE ON THE PRIVATE PROPERTY MAY MAKE A VIDEO RECORDING OF THE ACTIVITY FROM AN ADJACENT ROOM OR AREA THAT IS LESS THAN EIGHT FEET AWAY FROM WHERE THE ACTIVITY IS OCCURRING, UNLESS A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER DETERMINES THAT THE PERSON IS INTERFERING IN THE LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY OR THAT IT IS NOT SAFE TO BE IN THE AREA AND ORDERS THE PERSON TO LEAVE THE AREA. B. 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. C. THIS SECTION DOES NOT ESTABLISH A RIGHT OR AUTHORIZE ANY PERSON TO MAKE A VIDEO RECORDING OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY. D. A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS A CLASS 3 MISDEMEANOR. E. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, "LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY" MEANS ANY OF THE FOLLOWING: 1. QUESTIONING A SUSPICIOUS PERSON. 2. CONDUCTING AN ARREST, ISSUING A SUMMONS OR ENFORCING THE LAW. 3. HANDLING AN EMOTIONALLY DISTURBED OR DISORDERLY PERSON WHO IS EXHIBITING ABNORMAL BEHAVIOR. [1]: https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/laws/0376.htm https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/laws/0376.htm