4 ms·

Filming police performing their duties is a constitutionally protected activity affirmed by many circuit courts and strongly alluded to by the SCOTUS. >On July

Filming police performing their duties is a constitutionally protected activity affirmed by many circuit courts and strongly alluded to by the SCOTUS. >On July 1, an Indiana law went into effect making it a crime to come within 25 feet of an on-duty police officer if ordered to stay back. Legislators in Florida, Louisiana, and New York have produced similar laws. 25 feet isn't very far. In the other states mentioned I believe it's 10 feet, which is reasonable. It's been this way for a long time. Sounds like the articles objective is to peddle anger. >What stops an officer from walking up to someone filming them and then arresting them for being "too close" since they're now <10 feet from officer in question? It's the incident, not the officer. I'm sure one will try, but it the charges would hopefully be dropped. The government machine does protect itself though. >Does the 10 foot rule apply if you are the one being spoken to by the police? E.g. if you are recording a traffic stop. It would not, but one will probably try to say it does. The law is for people who have nothing directly to do with the stop.

giraffe_lady 3y ago
Have the legal position of any other scotus-affirmed rights changed recently that would have people on their toes, do you think, maybe? I've seen first hand police use the justification of stopping filming them to use violence on and arrest people filming them. For however long it takes to get this in front of the supreme court, assuming they choose to hear it, assuming they choose to endorse our rights, it will be used that way. They don't let you out of prison when the law used to justify your arrest is affirmed unconstitutional. It doesn't put your teeth back in your head or undo the TBI you got during the arrest. The article's objective seems to be to prevent the spread of these laws. The spread of these laws is something you should be angry about, and understanding and applying that to the goal is not malicious.
- Clubber 3y ago
  >Have the legal position of any other scotus-affirmed rights changed recently that would have people on their toes, do you think, maybe? Having read the reasoning of overturning Roe (I assume that's what you are alluding to), no, I'm not concerned. First amendment is on a much stronger legal standing than Roe was based on and has much fewer contradicting laws. >They don't let you out of prison when the law used to justify your arrest is affirmed unconstitutional. Obstructing is usually the charge used. It's not a prison-length offense (> 1 year). But yes, it depends. If your lawyer brought up the constitutionality of the law (as they should have), you can get released, but it does take time unfortunately. >It doesn't put your teeth back in your head or undo the TBI you got during the arrest. It does not. Fortunately here have been more and more police convicted of criminal activity doing things like this, so I'm hopeful for the future. I'd like to also add that the proliferation of camera phones is probably the single most helpful thing it reigning in bad behavior. Police body cams as well. It makes misbehavior much more difficult to cover up and justify. Either way, you're arguing about police brutality, not the fact that journalists need to be 10-25 feet away from an incident to film. I think 10-25 feet is reasonable. I think 10 feet is more reasonable than 25.
  - AlexandrB 3y ago
    > First amendment is on a much stronger legal standing than Roe was based on and has much fewer contradicting laws. I wonder what precedent links filming something to the 1st amendment. If I wanted to undermine the ability to film police, this is where I would look - because recording something, it could be argued, is not an expressive act. Consider states with "2 party consent" laws for recording phone conversations. These have not been ruled unconstitutional even though it's a similar activity to filming the police.
    - Clubber 3y ago
      >If I wanted to undermine the ability to film police, this is where I would look - because recording something, it could be argued, is not an expressive act. I linked this on an earlier reply, but I believe it answers your question. https://canons.sog.unc.edu/2022/11/responding-to-first-amendment-audits-is-filming-protected-by-the-first-amendment/ https://canons.sog.unc.edu/2022/11/responding-to-first-amend... >Consider states with "2 party consent" laws for recording phone conversations. These have not been ruled unconstitutional even though it's a similar activity to filming the police. Police have tried using this as an exception but I believe it was shot down because it's in public. The fact that some of them disliked being filmed so much just bolsters the case that they need to be filed, IMO. >Most of us would be furious about being filmed on the job. We just don’t render deadly force. If you're in public, you're always being filmed. Look up at most light poles, there's cameras everywhere.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > fact that some of them disliked being filmed so much just bolsters the case that they need to be filed, IMO Most of us would be furious about being filmed on the job. We just don’t render deadly force.
        AlexandrB 3y ago
        For many service workers interacting with the public it's already a reality that they get filmed and posted on TikTok/Instagram - especially if an interaction goes wrong.
- klyrs 3y ago
  All we need is one cop whose religion forbids being filmed....
s1artibartfast 3y ago
Clearly there's some distance where proximity becomes interfering with an arrest. However, I don't see why that should ever change based on if you are holding a camera or not. I wonder what pre-existing law or case law says about police telling people too back away.
- Clubber 3y ago
  >I don't see why that should ever change based on if you are holding a camera or not. It should not, but I believe that holding a camera is a strong signal that a person is operating as a journalist. It could be argued that a person watching an incident can easily be operating in the same capacity. I was wrong, the SCOTUS hasn't directly addressed filming of police, but that seems like it never got a chance to make it there because it's been affirmed in many circuit courts. They have alluded several times on how they feel about filming government officials (strongly support), but no case has directly made it in regards to explicitly filming police. https://canons.sog.unc.edu/2022/11/responding-to-first-amendment-audits-is-filming-protected-by-the-first-amendment/ https://canons.sog.unc.edu/2022/11/responding-to-first-amend... To date, there is no U.S. Supreme Court case establishing a right to film public officials engaged in carrying out their official duties or a right to film inside of public buildings generally. However, the Supreme Court has recognized a “paramount public interest in a free flow of information to the people concerning public officials.” Moreover, the Supreme Court has acknowledged that “the First Amendment goes beyond protection of the press and self-expression of individuals to prohibit government from limiting the stock of information from which members of the public may draw.” Filming public officials engaged in public duties may fall within this broadly defined “newsgathering” or “information gathering” right that courts have recognized in prior First Amendment cases. >Except, you know, in the Supreme Court. Yes, that is a strange exception.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    Why does it matter if they are a journalist or not in this context?
bigbillheck 3y ago
> Filming police performing their duties is a constitutionally protected activity affirmed by the SCOTUS For now.
harimau777 3y ago
Does the 10 foot rule apply if you are the one being spoken to by the police? E.g. if you are recording a traffic stop.
- autoexec 3y ago
  According to the Arizona law even if a police officer is beating you, you'd be committing a crime by recording them so long as the police can claim that you were also "INTERFERING WITH LAWFUL POLICE ACTIONS". As long as they scream "stop resisting" at you, you'll probably be a criminal.
  - noptd 3y ago
    Can you link an instance of this happening or is this entirely speculation on your part?
    - autoexec 3y ago
      The text of law is pretty short, you can read it yourself https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/HB2319S.pdf https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/HB2319S.pdf It was only put in place a year ago, and it was very quickly contested as unconstitutional, which it is, and a judge stopped it from being enforced. The Republican who drafted and sponsored the law has vowed to try again. ”If if the judge says, you know, this is bad because of ‘x’, next year, though, the bill will come in bill minus ‘x’,”
AlexandrB 3y ago
What stops an officer from walking up to someone filming them and then arresting them for being "too close" since they're now <10 feet from officer in question?
calgarymicro 3y ago
> New York Really? Who was it introduced by? NY has actually passed a 'right to record' bill that did the exact opposite[0], so I'd be shocked if anything like this had a snowball's chance in hell of passing there. [0]https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2019/S3253 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2019/S3253
mitt_romney_12 3y ago
>25 feet isn't very far. In the other states mentioned I believe it's 10 feet, which is reasonable The 25 ft buffer means that while people aren't prevented from recording an arrest, they are prevented from making a recording that would actually show anything. Like the article says "They create a visual and auditory buffer likely to produce reasonable doubt in the courtroom. Is the officer’s knee on the suspect’s shoulder, or on his windpipe? Is the suspect fighting, or flailing? From 25 feet, with officers blocking visibility, phone cameras can’t capture crucial details. From 25 feet, they can’t capture choking sounds or someone crying “I can’t breathe.”"
- minitoar 3y ago
  But like all laws applying a heuristic to technology it will rapidly become outdated.
- rootusrootus 3y ago
  > From 25 feet, they can’t capture choking sounds or someone crying “I can’t breathe.”" If you really believe that, I recommend going outside and stepping off 25 feet and then trying some smartphone recordings. 25 feet is actually very close. I wouldn't be surprised if cops find it very uncomfortable to have bystanders that close when any kind of violent encounter is in progress. Most people can run that distance in under 2 seconds.
  - mitt_romney_12 3y ago
    > If you really believe that, I recommend going outside and stepping off 25 feet and then trying some smartphone recordings. I recommend you trying that in a high stress situation involving an number of people in close proximity and lots of environmental noise. And then trying to see how that footage would be interpreted by a hostile lawyer in court > I wouldn't be surprised if cops find it very uncomfortable to have bystanders that close when any kind of violent encounter is in progress These are not violent encounters, the only violence that is going on is from the police. While I do care about the comfort of the police while arresting people, I am more concerned about not being assaulted or killed.
kerblang 3y ago
> Sounds like the articles objective is to peddle anger. Just my opinion, but Slate is heavily left-slanted, moreso than Vox. That's not a crime, of course, but I really don't think this kind of echo-chambering is a good fit for HN, even when recognizing HN is quite off-topic-tolerant. Of course people are gonna do what people do anyhow.
- Clubber 3y ago
  >I really don't think this kind of echo-chambering is a good fit for HN The nice thing about HN is there is a lot of discussion poking holes in any particular narrative. At least we get to hear and consider both sides of an issue rather than the single side most media portrays. I think that's healthy as long as it remains civil, and it mostly is.

giraffe_lady 3y ago

Have the legal position of any other scotus-affirmed rights changed recently that would have people on their toes, do you think, maybe? I've seen first hand police use the justification of stopping filming them to use violence on and arrest people filming them. For however long it takes to get this in front of the supreme court, assuming they choose to hear it, assuming they choose to endorse our rights, it will be used that way. They don't let you out of prison when the law used to justify your arrest is affirmed unconstitutional. It doesn't put your teeth back in your head or undo the TBI you got during the arrest. The article's objective seems to be to prevent the spread of these laws. The spread of these laws is something you should be angry about, and understanding and applying that to the goal is not malicious.

Clubber 3y ago
>Have the legal position of any other scotus-affirmed rights changed recently that would have people on their toes, do you think, maybe? Having read the reasoning of overturning Roe (I assume that's what you are alluding to), no, I'm not concerned. First amendment is on a much stronger legal standing than Roe was based on and has much fewer contradicting laws. >They don't let you out of prison when the law used to justify your arrest is affirmed unconstitutional. Obstructing is usually the charge used. It's not a prison-length offense (> 1 year). But yes, it depends. If your lawyer brought up the constitutionality of the law (as they should have), you can get released, but it does take time unfortunately. >It doesn't put your teeth back in your head or undo the TBI you got during the arrest. It does not. Fortunately here have been more and more police convicted of criminal activity doing things like this, so I'm hopeful for the future. I'd like to also add that the proliferation of camera phones is probably the single most helpful thing it reigning in bad behavior. Police body cams as well. It makes misbehavior much more difficult to cover up and justify. Either way, you're arguing about police brutality, not the fact that journalists need to be 10-25 feet away from an incident to film. I think 10-25 feet is reasonable. I think 10 feet is more reasonable than 25.
- AlexandrB 3y ago
  > First amendment is on a much stronger legal standing than Roe was based on and has much fewer contradicting laws. I wonder what precedent links filming something to the 1st amendment. If I wanted to undermine the ability to film police, this is where I would look - because recording something, it could be argued, is not an expressive act. Consider states with "2 party consent" laws for recording phone conversations. These have not been ruled unconstitutional even though it's a similar activity to filming the police.
  - Clubber 3y ago
    >If I wanted to undermine the ability to film police, this is where I would look - because recording something, it could be argued, is not an expressive act. I linked this on an earlier reply, but I believe it answers your question. https://canons.sog.unc.edu/2022/11/responding-to-first-amendment-audits-is-filming-protected-by-the-first-amendment/ https://canons.sog.unc.edu/2022/11/responding-to-first-amend... >Consider states with "2 party consent" laws for recording phone conversations. These have not been ruled unconstitutional even though it's a similar activity to filming the police. Police have tried using this as an exception but I believe it was shot down because it's in public. The fact that some of them disliked being filmed so much just bolsters the case that they need to be filed, IMO. >Most of us would be furious about being filmed on the job. We just don’t render deadly force. If you're in public, you're always being filmed. Look up at most light poles, there's cameras everywhere.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > fact that some of them disliked being filmed so much just bolsters the case that they need to be filed, IMO Most of us would be furious about being filmed on the job. We just don’t render deadly force.
      - AlexandrB 3y ago
        For many service workers interacting with the public it's already a reality that they get filmed and posted on TikTok/Instagram - especially if an interaction goes wrong.
klyrs 3y ago
All we need is one cop whose religion forbids being filmed....

s1artibartfast 3y ago

Clearly there's some distance where proximity becomes interfering with an arrest. However, I don't see why that should ever change based on if you are holding a camera or not. I wonder what pre-existing law or case law says about police telling people too back away.

Clubber 3y ago
>I don't see why that should ever change based on if you are holding a camera or not. It should not, but I believe that holding a camera is a strong signal that a person is operating as a journalist. It could be argued that a person watching an incident can easily be operating in the same capacity. I was wrong, the SCOTUS hasn't directly addressed filming of police, but that seems like it never got a chance to make it there because it's been affirmed in many circuit courts. They have alluded several times on how they feel about filming government officials (strongly support), but no case has directly made it in regards to explicitly filming police. https://canons.sog.unc.edu/2022/11/responding-to-first-amendment-audits-is-filming-protected-by-the-first-amendment/ https://canons.sog.unc.edu/2022/11/responding-to-first-amend... To date, there is no U.S. Supreme Court case establishing a right to film public officials engaged in carrying out their official duties or a right to film inside of public buildings generally. However, the Supreme Court has recognized a “paramount public interest in a free flow of information to the people concerning public officials.” Moreover, the Supreme Court has acknowledged that “the First Amendment goes beyond protection of the press and self-expression of individuals to prohibit government from limiting the stock of information from which members of the public may draw.” Filming public officials engaged in public duties may fall within this broadly defined “newsgathering” or “information gathering” right that courts have recognized in prior First Amendment cases. >Except, you know, in the Supreme Court. Yes, that is a strange exception.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  Why does it matter if they are a journalist or not in this context?

bigbillheck 3y ago

> Filming police performing their duties is a constitutionally protected activity affirmed by the SCOTUS For now.

harimau777 3y ago

Does the 10 foot rule apply if you are the one being spoken to by the police? E.g. if you are recording a traffic stop.

autoexec 3y ago
According to the Arizona law even if a police officer is beating you, you'd be committing a crime by recording them so long as the police can claim that you were also "INTERFERING WITH LAWFUL POLICE ACTIONS". As long as they scream "stop resisting" at you, you'll probably be a criminal.
- noptd 3y ago
  Can you link an instance of this happening or is this entirely speculation on your part?
  - autoexec 3y ago
    The text of law is pretty short, you can read it yourself https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/HB2319S.pdf https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/HB2319S.pdf It was only put in place a year ago, and it was very quickly contested as unconstitutional, which it is, and a judge stopped it from being enforced. The Republican who drafted and sponsored the law has vowed to try again. ”If if the judge says, you know, this is bad because of ‘x’, next year, though, the bill will come in bill minus ‘x’,”

AlexandrB 3y ago

What stops an officer from walking up to someone filming them and then arresting them for being "too close" since they're now <10 feet from officer in question?

calgarymicro 3y ago

> New York Really? Who was it introduced by? NY has actually passed a 'right to record' bill that did the exact opposite[0], so I'd be shocked if anything like this had a snowball's chance in hell of passing there. [0]https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2019/S3253 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2019/S3253

mitt_romney_12 3y ago

>25 feet isn't very far. In the other states mentioned I believe it's 10 feet, which is reasonable The 25 ft buffer means that while people aren't prevented from recording an arrest, they are prevented from making a recording that would actually show anything. Like the article says "They create a visual and auditory buffer likely to produce reasonable doubt in the courtroom. Is the officer’s knee on the suspect’s shoulder, or on his windpipe? Is the suspect fighting, or flailing? From 25 feet, with officers blocking visibility, phone cameras can’t capture crucial details. From 25 feet, they can’t capture choking sounds or someone crying “I can’t breathe.”"

minitoar 3y ago
But like all laws applying a heuristic to technology it will rapidly become outdated.
rootusrootus 3y ago
> From 25 feet, they can’t capture choking sounds or someone crying “I can’t breathe.”" If you really believe that, I recommend going outside and stepping off 25 feet and then trying some smartphone recordings. 25 feet is actually very close. I wouldn't be surprised if cops find it very uncomfortable to have bystanders that close when any kind of violent encounter is in progress. Most people can run that distance in under 2 seconds.
- mitt_romney_12 3y ago
  > If you really believe that, I recommend going outside and stepping off 25 feet and then trying some smartphone recordings. I recommend you trying that in a high stress situation involving an number of people in close proximity and lots of environmental noise. And then trying to see how that footage would be interpreted by a hostile lawyer in court > I wouldn't be surprised if cops find it very uncomfortable to have bystanders that close when any kind of violent encounter is in progress These are not violent encounters, the only violence that is going on is from the police. While I do care about the comfort of the police while arresting people, I am more concerned about not being assaulted or killed.

kerblang 3y ago

> Sounds like the articles objective is to peddle anger. Just my opinion, but Slate is heavily left-slanted, moreso than Vox. That's not a crime, of course, but I really don't think this kind of echo-chambering is a good fit for HN, even when recognizing HN is quite off-topic-tolerant. Of course people are gonna do what people do anyhow.

Clubber 3y ago
>I really don't think this kind of echo-chambering is a good fit for HN The nice thing about HN is there is a lot of discussion poking holes in any particular narrative. At least we get to hear and consider both sides of an issue rather than the single side most media portrays. I think that's healthy as long as it remains civil, and it mostly is.