3 ms·

"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 t

"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.)
paulclinger 4y ago
It looks like this contact may now fall under "A PERSON WHO IS THE SUBJECT OF POLICE CONTACT MAY RECORD THE ENCOUNTER" clause, which still allows recording, as they are not longer a bystander, but I'm not a lawyer.

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.)

paulclinger 4y ago

It looks like this contact may now fall under "A PERSON WHO IS THE SUBJECT OF POLICE CONTACT MAY RECORD THE ENCOUNTER" clause, which still allows recording, as they are not longer a bystander, but I'm not a lawyer.