Arizona makes it illegal for bystanders to record cops at close range

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/07/arizona-makes-it-illegal-for-bystanders-to-record-cops-at-close-range/

by arunbahl • 4 years ago

359 224 4 years ago

greyface-• 4 years ago

Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32025858

googlryas• 4 years ago

The new Arizona law requires any bystanders recording police activity in the state to stand at a minimum of 8 feet away from the action. If bystanders move closer after police have warned them to back off, they risk being charged with a misdemeanor and incurring fines of up to $500, jail time of up to 30 days, or probation of up to a year

What exactly is wrong with this? Previously, couldn't cops just claim you were interfering regardless of distance or number of warnings?

colechristensen2• 4 years ago

It also seems like a protection for recording the police. “The law says I can record you if I’m more than 8 feet away”

No more could police argue interference because there’s an explicit definition now of what is too close.

jvanderbot• 4 years ago

Obvious protection. Exception proves the rule.

WesternWind2• 4 years ago

quoting the law, "THIS SECTION DOES NOT ESTABLISH A RIGHT OR AUTHORIZE ANY PERSON TO MAKE A VIDEO RECORDING OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY."

bergenty2• 4 years ago

But then the cop runs towards you and now everyone filming can potentially end up in prison.

kolanos• 4 years ago

It also seems like a protection for recording the police.

This was already constitutionally protected. And this new law is likely going to be challenged on its constitutionality.

mbrameld• 4 years ago

Previously, couldn't cops just claim you were interfering regardless of distance or number of warnings?

They can still do that, too. Interfering is still illegal no matter what you're doing or where you are when you do it. Simply filming is protected by the first amendment, so unless you were doing something else you had a defense to say you weren't interfering. Now that defense is gone. It doesn't matter whether you're actually interfering or not, now you can be arrested and charged for simply filming.

badlucklottery• 4 years ago

What exactly is wrong with this?

It's a pretty obvious way to criminalize citizens documenting police. The police already had the law on their side to deal with people actually interfering in their duties. Now merely documenting them in a way they determine is unsafe is a crime.

Previously, couldn't cops just claim you were interfering regardless of distance or number of warnings?

They still can.

throwawaymaths2• 4 years ago

Yeah I am huge on recording cops, but a minimum distance of 8 feet does not bother me as long as it doesn't slippery slope into more. Slippery slope arguments are usually invalid, unless they involve government justifying and expanding powers, we have plenty of historical evidence for that.

patmcc2• 4 years ago

What exactly is wrong with this? Previously, couldn't cops just claim you were interfering regardless of distance or number of warnings?

What's wrong is this - I'm filming some police brutality from the legally mandated 8 feet away. Then a cop moves 1 foot closer to me. Ooops, look like my camera/phone is confiscated and I'm under arrest.

14• 4 years ago

That is why you should have it live streamed so even if they confiscate/ accidentally smash your phone it is too late.

Rapzid• 4 years ago

Yeah, 8 feet is pretty dang close to police action. I would consider that "close range".

epakai• 4 years ago

For many situations, yes. In a crowd, not really. In something like a concert crowd, clubbing, etc. next to impossible.

bergenty2• 4 years ago

They’re just going to have one cop be the “perimeter” 50 ft away.

jksmith2• 4 years ago

What if you were on a bus, sitting across from a cop bashing somebody's face in? Ok, back up two rows to be able to video. Check!

What if you have to get out of your car, but leave your camera running and the cop decides to drag you down and put a knee on your neck within 8 feet?

nvrspyx• 4 years ago

For the second example, you wouldn't be a bystander, so I don't think it would apply. If you were the passenger though, I guess it would.

drewcoo3• 4 years ago

And if you can't move, ask the cop to continue the beating farther away so you can film.

wonderwonder9• 4 years ago

In 10 seconds the cops are going to have brainstormed having an officer walk around asking people to move back from them, driving bystanders further and further from whatever is taking place. They will also indiscriminately arrest people now knowing they can just charge them with violating this law. If the cop says you were 6ft away and you say you were 8, who are they going to believe? Does it really matter, you are already going to jail and your phone was unfortunately damaged in the arrest which you were also resisting.

Just read up on who the bill sponsor is and you will understand his intent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kavanagh_(Arizona_politic...

nonrandomstring3• 4 years ago

If the cop says you were 6ft away and you say you were 8, who are they going to believe?

The video footage. Image analysis along with metadata is sufficient to determine the viewpoint.

Does it really matter, you are already going to jail and your phone was unfortunately damaged in the arrest which you were also resisting.

5G, and perhaps within a few years the new civilian internet satellites, will evolve this situation. Constantly uploading/syncing video and images to secure remote storage is something war journalists have long sought. By the time someone with a gun threatens you to delete things you can go through the theatre of complying, or they can even destroy your device, but it's too late for them.

hooloovoo_zoo• 4 years ago

What's the policy on 8' selfie sticks?

formerkrogemp• 4 years ago

Officer charges you with assault and resisting arrest. New supreme court rulings abrogate your exercising Miranda rights and limit liability for police and federal agents, even if they enter your home without a warrant and beat you.

visarga• 4 years ago

What about 15x zoom on iPhones?

actually_a_dog• 4 years ago

15x is digital zoom, which is useless. The iPhone 13 only has 3x optical zoom. Previous iPhones only have 2x optical zoom.

hulahoof• 4 years ago

Seems like a great way to prevent recordings by having one officer move towards onlookers and force them an arbitrary distance away

Fargoan• 4 years ago

This is exactly what's going to happen.

ifelsethenyeah3• 4 years ago

"Nothing to see here. Please disperse. And stop recording."

ravenstine• 4 years ago

Which they can and often do already...

woodruffw5• 4 years ago

The fact that the police currently abuse their power isn't a good reason to give them additional legal latitude to do so.

Thorrez9• 4 years ago

It's not 8 feet from the nearest cop. It's 8 feet from where the arrest is happening. So unless both the arresting officer and the arrestee come toward you, you can stay where you are and film.

njharman2• 4 years ago

Quote me that line in the law that says that.

sd8f9iu• 4 years ago

A cop is within 8 feet of you during a traffic stop. So if the cop puts you or another passenger under arrest, you have to stop filming. And if you were filming before and caught the cop doing something illegal, they are now incentivized to arrest you to make you stop.

A bystander interfering with police has nothing to do with recording and is already illegal. This is clearly just an attempt to make it more difficult to hold cops accountable.

spyder• 4 years ago

Not if it's 8 feet above from a drone, or drone in 8 feet auto-follow mode :-D /s

(But, there is probably more strict laws for drones in general, I don't know the US rules about that.)

roamerz• 4 years ago

I was going to reflect on how a gun that resembled an iphone might affect this conversation. I did a quick search and saw that they are easily available. So now as a Police Officer when someone takes a phone out of there pocket you have to immediately assess the risk. Am I going to be shot or recorded? Being in law enforcement is getting more dangerous by the day. Damn.

carbadtraingood• 4 years ago

This is a laughable concern. There's no reason to think there will be a rash of guns-shaped-like-iphones being a thing.

Being a cop is less dangerous than, for instance, being a pizza delivery driver.

jrajav• 4 years ago

It is more dangerous to be a landscaper, a fisherman, or a truck driver in America, than to be a police officer. Not a joke. Being a police officer is one of the safer professions you can do outdoors or on the road.

The risk of the job is absolutely normal and zero excuse for any concessions of accountability.

RajT88• 4 years ago

How many times have these covert phone-guns been used in crimes?

They are unlikely to be much use for that. Self defense or covert assassination, neither are at all common gun violence. Arguably a poor tool for much else.

QED most of these phone-gun owners are likely living in some fantasy world. See: "Sword Guys" archetype.

NavinF• 4 years ago

Genuinely can’t tell if this is satire

anonu• 4 years ago

8 feet seems reasonable... I don't think you'd be able to capture much action any closer to be honest.

Then again, laws like this are a slippery slope.

aeternum• 4 years ago

Can you legally record a cop stopping you from your own dashcam now? Probably not, it's within 8ft.

jwilk• 4 years ago

You are not a "bystandander" in that situation, are you?

rexpop• 4 years ago

Top 25 Most Dangerous Professions (Fatal Injury Rate per 100,000 Workers)

1 Logging workers (70)

2 Aircraft pilots and flight engineers (60)

3 Roofers (50)

4 Construction helpers (40)

5 Crossing guards (38)

6 Garbage collectors (31)

7 Farming supervisors (29)

8 Delivery drivers (28)

9 Ironworkers (27)

10 Farmers (25)

11 Cement masons (22)

12 Agricultural workers (21)

13 Construction supervisors (20)

14 Highway maintenance workers (19)

15 Grounds maintenance workers (18)

16 Mining machine operators (18)

17 Supervisors of mechanics (16)

18 Power lineworkers (15)

19 Construction workers (14)

20 Construction equipment operators (14)

21 Maintenance workers (13)

22 Heavy vehicle mechanics (13)

23 Crane operators (13)

24 Landscaping supervisors (12)

25 Police officers (12)

For what it's worth, most of us have little education on the subject of policing. We're taught a lot about how a biological cell operates, how to structure English grammar, and who fought the War of 1812, but absolutely nothing about how police function, when policing was invented, by whom, where, or to what end[0]. We go through our adult lives believing about police what we absorbed from children's cartoons and, later, TV procedurals or action movies. This leaves us with an impression of the field that is naive, if not outright fantasy.

0. https://www.versobooks.com/books/3906-the-end-of-policing

ifelsethenyeah3• 4 years ago

I'm not sure where you sourced your information. Taxi drivers are around as dangerous as loggers. Petro-chem (oil rigs) are also extremely dangerous.

bigDinosaur2• 4 years ago

Police tend to be assaulted at far higher rates than any kind of fatal injury rate, and I'm not sure I'd say it's 'safe' just because it's not death. Do you have any statistics that put a figure on the actual amount of psychopathic/drug fuelled/antisocial behaviour directed specifically at police? I'd be surprised if Airline pilots were assaulted at the same level as police, for example.

kelseyfrog• 4 years ago

cool, do the same list but for assault rates

drewcoo3• 4 years ago

Definitely don't record loggers at close range!

kazinator• 4 years ago

I see "17 supervisors of mechanics" but not "mechanics" (other than 22, "Heavy vehicle mechanics").

Maybe supervisors of mechanics should keep a distance from the mechanics; perhaps stay in the back room and reorganize the files in the cabinet.

OK, jest aside. Could this be an age/experience effect?

Here is the idea: over time, mechanics get promoted to supervisor positions, right?

Suppose the average number of years for a mechanic to get promoted to supervisor is X. Then suppose that, for a mechanic, the average number of years on the job before a fatal accident is Y.

If it happens that Y >> X, then more supervisors will be killed than more junior mechanics. This is something akin to or a form of survivorship bias.

It's not that supervisors have a more dangerous job but that they have been doing it longer, exposed to more cumulative risk.

rufus_foreman• 4 years ago

I'm not sure what the point of your list is. Is your argument that professions like crane operator or construction worker are nowhere near as dangerous as that of logging worker, so we don't need regulations to make them safer?

Because in my opinion, crane operator and construction worker are dangerous professions, and if there are reasonable regulations that can make them safer, it would be a good idea to look at the pros and cons of those regulations.

wonderwonder9• 4 years ago

Most insane part of this article was the below quote from the bill sponsor:

"Kavanagh said it is important to leave this buffer for police to protect law enforcement from being assaulted by unruly bystanders. He said “there’s no reason” to come closer and predicted tragic outcomes for those who do, saying, “Such an approach is unreasonable, unnecessary, and unsafe, and should be made illegal."

He is just happily excusing cops visiting "tragic outcomes" on people who get closer than 8 feet to cops. The lengths that people will go to too justify police just killing people is insane. How about we don't allow police to just wantonly murder or beat whoever they want?

This same guy is an ex cop and "sponsored legislation that would prohibit oversight boards of police departments unless those boards were two-thirds sworn police officers" After the 2020 election he also said: ""Everybody shouldn’t be voting...Quantity is important, but we have to look at the quality of votes, as well."

Seems like a really great guy that very much deserves to be in power /s

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kavanagh_(Arizona_politic...

beebmam• 4 years ago

If there's anything that would build public trust back in police institutions, it would be politically-empowered independent citizen's oversight boards. It is such a shame that most cities in the US don't have these.

I'd like the police to be a (mostly) transparent organization that is concerned with the health of our society and key partners to all upstanding citizens. Citizen oversight boards is one path to making that happen.

wonderwonder9• 4 years ago

Unfortunately so many police departments are just gangs now with political backing. Just this 4th of July the NYPD decided it was their right to commandeer viewing areas for their families and prevent the public from using them. No repercussions, no politicians demanding an investigation, just armed people in uniform daring you to say something. This is a massive open abuse of power and its just shrugged off.

theshrike79• 4 years ago

The #1 thing that would reform the US police institutions is this:

- All damages would be paid from their pension fund.

That's it. If the bill goes to the city/county, nobody cares. If $cop1 fucking up messes up $cop[1..n]'s future pension plans? They'll start to self-police real fast.

SpikeDad• 4 years ago

This is exactly the solution. I've long proposed civilian review boards assembled like juries - random citizens called in to judge specific cases of police actions. Theses juries would have the ability to rule on the culpability of the officers, select penalties and their deliberations would be secret and final.

Police that know their actions would be reviewed and their chiefs and administrators would have no ability to save them would certainly reduce the amount of police illegality.

akira2501• 4 years ago

We obviously don't let police "just do" that, and I don't see how this law increases risk here. The other side that people seem to be missing here is that it explicitly establishes a boundary past which it's perfectly fine to film the police.

In many other jurisdictions this would be at the discretion of the officer, if they felt you were merely interfering with their investigation they could arrest you. A law like this clarifies exactly where that line is expected to be. And it's reasonably short enough and with appropriate exceptions that on it's own, I don't see a problem with the law.

Regardless of how one may feel about the sponsor of the bill, it was still voted on and passed by a majority of the legislative body.

galleywest200• 4 years ago

The law does not seem to stop an officer from walking close to someone to demand they stop filming.

It seems that if you are filming "safely from a distance" they just need to send one officer over to wherever you are and demand you stop filming.

testbjjl• 4 years ago

Regardless of how one may feel about the sponsor of the bill, it was still voted on and passed by a majority of the legislative body.

A legislative body that subjectively follows the law.

gleenn• 4 years ago

IANAL, is that actually the case? Just because you set the minimum doesn't mean if you're on the other side that you're legal. It's not binary. There is the legal grey zone.

KennyBlanken3• 4 years ago

A law like this clarifies exactly where that line is expected to be.

It sets a specific measurement, but it would be extremely difficult to prove someone was or wasn't within the set distance.

The court will always defer to police over other witnesses.

The law is completely unnecessary for the stated purpose. Every state already has plenty of "interfering with a police officer" type laws...and there's no epidemic of people filming stuff, getting in the way of police.

This law is a softball for the supreme court to use to revoke their prior ruling that filming police is constitutional.

I suspect it's also designed to stop passengers in a stopped motor vehicle from filming - a few police shooting cases involved footage taken by a front seat passenger, showing the driver never made any threatening moves.

decebalus1• 4 years ago

a boundary past which it's perfectly fine to film the police.

A boundary relative to what? An immovable object or a cop who can walk? I mean walk towards someone who's at 8 feet and tell them to stop filming?

mlyle4• 4 years ago

The other side that people seem to be missing here is that it explicitly establishes a boundary past which it's perfectly fine to film the police.

vs.

" C. THIS SECTION DOES NOT ESTABLISH A RIGHT OR AUTHORIZE ANY PERSON TO MAKE A VIDEO RECORDING OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY. "

https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/HB2319S.pdf

The law explicitly makes it closer than 8 feet, after a warning, illegal (with some exceptions). It does not supersede other laws about interfering with an investigation.

satellite2• 4 years ago

It prevents victims of police brutality to film the scene. In most cases you don't have bystander read to film abuse. So filming your own interactions with the police should be a must.

TomSwirly• 4 years ago

The other side that people seem to be missing here is that it explicitly establishes a boundary past which it's perfectly fine to film the police.
I don't see a problem with the law.

How can you possibly say this? It means the police can completely stop you from filming, simply by having cop walk up to you.

Heck, a cop can walk up behind you filming, when you can't see him, and simply arrest you. "You were ten feet away from them, but here I am behind you, off to jail for a year!"

it was still voted on and passed by a majority of the legislative body.

So were plenty of evil, immoral things. This statement is a signpost - when people say that, it means, "Morality is not an issue that concerns me."

lamontcg• 4 years ago

The other side that people seem to be missing here is that it explicitly establishes a boundary past which it's perfectly fine to film the police.

That boundary is likely to be chipped into further and then upheld by the current SCOTUS.

The repeal of Roe v. Wade shows that we can't really trust the the slippery slope is a fallacy these days.

yieldcrv• 4 years ago

(For anyone that didnt read the article, this is a local Kavanaugh, not the supreme court justice)

nailer3• 4 years ago

The lengths that people will go to too justify police just killing people is insane.

Please avoid hyperbole on HN.

wonderwonder9• 4 years ago

Honest question, based on the bill sponsors background, his own words and the current policing situation in the US; what part of this is hyperbole? People actively defended the police officers that killed George Floyd and Breonna Taylor. Not trying to start an argument, just interested in your view.

majormajor• 4 years ago

The Ars headline is one of the few for this story that I've seen that has specified "for bystanders" vs making it sound like it was also illegal for the person involved (e.g. someone pulled over in a car or someone else in the car with them) to record.

I probably wouldn't support the law - especially if the "cop walks towards someone recording" bit counts as "being within 8 feet of the activity" - but let's report things as written.

plaguepilled2• 4 years ago

I'm not American so maybe there's some Very Cool Constitutional Reason this isn't challenged, but is this something people can class action the state over? Seems like the kind of thing that would get steamrolled in court

thaumasiotes• 4 years ago

Facial challenges to a law are rare and courts don't like them. A normal challenge would have to come from someone who had had the law enforced against them. Give it time.

smt883• 4 years ago

It will be steamrolled in court until it reaches the radical, ultra-conservative Supreme Court who will say that the Constitution doesn't mention cameras and has no opinion about filming, at which point the law will stand.

plaguepilled2• 4 years ago

Frustrating, but that makes sense. What's the mechanism to lawfully replace the current Supreme Court with normal people?

grecy• 4 years ago

The slippery slope keeps getting steeper and steeper... they continue to pass new laws to make the person recording a criminal act into a criminal, but do nothing against the person committing the criminal act in the first place that is on film!

See Ag-Gag laws: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ag-gag

ifelsethenyeah3• 4 years ago

So, what does "close" mean? 1000 ft with a telescope?

I can understand not interfering with the immediate official duties, but this seems like it will be overturned on 1a grounds.

dawnerd• 4 years ago

Article says a minimum of 8 feet away.

Thorentis• 4 years ago

If I was cop, I would certainly want to know that there is a physical boundary in law that bystanders cannot cross. For my own safety, and for theirs. I see nothing unreasonable about not allowing people to cross this boundary. The law does not prevent recording. It says you cannot record closer than 8ft. Why would somebody need to get closer than 8ft to an officer doing their job, when you have no involvement in the situation at hand? Adding more people to the situation simply increases the stress of all involved.

knodi123• 4 years ago

Does this law contain a provision that prevents the cops from moving closer to civilians?

If I was a bystander, I'd certainly want to know that a cop wasn't allowed to take two steps towards me, declare that I am now within the 8 ft barrier, and am now subject to assault and arrest unless I delete the recording.

Don't make laws unless you've thoroughly thought about how they can be abused by bad actors.

SCLeo• 4 years ago

The new Arizona law requires any bystanders recording police activity in the state to stand at a minimum of 8 feet away from the action. If bystanders move closer after police have warned them to back off, they risk being charged with a misdemeanor and incurring fines of up to $500, jail time of up to 30 days, or probation of up to a year.

I have not read the law myself, but if the summary is accurate, it seems to suggest police moving towards the bystander does not count.

Thorrez9• 4 years ago

It's not 8 feet from the nearest cop. It's 8 feet from where the arrest is happening.

Thorrez9• 4 years ago

I don't see how it would be legal for the police to ask you to delete the recording. Asking you to stop recording or move back could be based on you potentially interfering. Asking you to delete a recording? Doesn't make sense.

refurb2• 4 years ago

The law (it's in the article) says 8 feet from police activity and then lists out activities such as: arrest, questioning, handling an emotionally disturbed person.

A police officer is standing there doing crowd control, that's not included.

coin• 4 years ago

Isn’t there already a law for interfering with a police investigation? Why do we need new, redundant laws?

KennyBlanken3• 4 years ago

Because the point of this law is to get run up to the supreme court and reverse their ruling that recording the police is constitutionally protected.

I suspect it's also to stop passengers from recording a traffic stop.

drewcoo3• 4 years ago

Just call it "hate interference" and it's totally inline with other extra-punitive laws.

KennyBlanken3• 4 years ago

Why would somebody need to get closer than 8ft to an officer doing their job, when you have no involvement in the situation at hand?

Why do you need a law designed to prevent people from interfering with an officer doing their job, when you already have plenty of laws that make it illegal to interfere with an officer doing their job?

zimpenfish2• 4 years ago

Why do you need a law designed to [...]

He tried it before in 2016 (20ft). Also "Kavanagh sponsored legislation that would prohibit oversight boards of police departments".

Cynically, you might say, since he's an ex-cop, he's pandering to the police vote and/or funds for votes and election monies.

(But given some of the other stuff he's promoted, he might just be a dick.)

crummy• 4 years ago

Before this law took effect, were police often interfered with during their jobs from members of the public with cameras?

elil17• 4 years ago

If by their jobs you mean enforcing the law fairly, no. Cameras don’t interfere with that. If by their jobs you mean enforcing the law arbitrarily, using unnecessary force, and harassing citizens without cause - yes, cameras interfered a lot.

ryanmercer3• 4 years ago

Yes. Go watch a dozen or two of these videos, it's quite common for bystanders to interfere with police, endangering police, endangering themselves, and endangering other civilians in the area.

WARNING videos on this channel frequently include violence either in aggression or in self defense, some resulting in the loss of life.

https://www.youtube.com/c/DonutOperatorOfficial/videos

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sw3F91w6D78 here is a video of onlookers recording agitating one another, several of which are standing in the street and blocking police vehicles.

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71wdrhKzuys here a man that had been harassing local businesses and patrons all day charges a guardsman (who's an off-duty police officer) and the crowd starts surrounding him, recording, shouting things, agitating, when another bystander jumps to the guardsman's defense and now you've got multiple hostile people getting more and more agitated while the guardsman waits for uniformed police to come take the guy that tried to assault him, tried to damage his car, was harassing others, etc.

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H40vEOOs5z0 here are protestors, standing around filming each other, assaulting a motorcycle officer on his motorcycle as he tries to drive away from them

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvDwWSl-sVE here officers try to restrain a felon, in felony possession of a firearm, that had tried to assault officers while a felon unlawfully possessing a firearm, as people surrounded them to hold their phones as close to them as possible to take footage, then as 3 of them try to subdue the suspect that continued, while armed, to try and resist then has to escalate to non-lethal violence of gasp punching the guy to try to get him to submit. At 3:42 an onlooker throws a full trash can at the officers that are actively trying to handcuff an ARMED FELON that is fighting tooth and nail to escape.

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdFsumyHLXo guy on a roof of a business hops down, then retrieves a handgun and aims it at officers, the officers start issuing commands while a bystander walks into the officer's line of fire filming and occasionally shouting things (go to 4:20 and you can see them just right of 12 o'clock.)

Etc.

woodruffw5• 4 years ago

The last time this was discussed on HN, I pointed out that there are a wide variety of situations in which bystanders cannot safely leave the immediate vicinity of law enforcement. Crowds on the street, a packed bus or subway, a hostage situation, and so forth.

This law takes a powerful tool for civilian oversight and puts it at the mercy of both happenstance and the mercurial attitudes of individual cops. It takes a situation that everybody agrees is stressful and turns it additionally into one where civilians are punished chiefly for their misfortune.

Jordrok• 4 years ago

If this law is purely about the safety concerns raised by bystanders being within 8 feet, then why does it explicitly only apply to RECORDING within 8 feet? It does absolutely nothing to prevent bystanders from coming within 8 feet. It only becomes a crime if they pull out a phone and start recording. The "safety" argument is a blatant red herring.

robbrown4513• 4 years ago

Then it would apply to a lot more situations. The problem is that the only reason people are that close is that they are recording. If they try to say "no one can be closer than 8 feet" that complicates things considerably.... I mean, I've walked by such situations on the sidewalk and gotten closer than 8 feet, because it was unavoidable without crossing the street. (these situations weren't ones likely to be filmed, though, just typical city stuff like with homeless and/or mentally ill people) But I wasn't just hanging out really closely, as I'd be if recording.

I think they were just trying to address a relatively new situation that was causing them problems.

I don't really agree with this law, but I also don't think your cynicism on that particular thing is entirely warranted.

tsimionescu3• 4 years ago

I'm wondering if we would still have the incredibly powerful "I can't breathe" recording if this law was in effect.

robbrown4513• 4 years ago

It was far more than 8 feet away. And if it wasn't, they could easily step back and keep filming.

plutonorm• 4 years ago

I agree. As long as this isn't the thin end of the wedge≥

unsupp0rted• 4 years ago

"Officer Smith, go walk over to anybody recording us and confiscate their equipment for recording you walking over to them"

Pakdef• 4 years ago

But it was already illegal to interfere with police.... They don't need this law...

stirfish2• 4 years ago

If I was cop, I would certainly want to know that there is a physical boundary in law that bystanders cannot cross.

The bill doesn't say you can't come within 8 feet of a police officer. It says you can't FILM within 8 feet. The bill specifically punishes filming the police.

Terry_Roll• 4 years ago

I think it fair to say the US cops are rather paranoid and some prone to roid rage, so this is sensible, last thing you want is to be on your hands and knees dealing with a suspect whilst worrying about members of the public who might be to close to the action for their citizen policing media content.

Most if not all of the camera footage of George Floyd being murdered was taken from over 8ft away!

jollybean• 4 years ago

8ft should be the required distance for everything unless the person is involved.

Police doing an arrest have every reasonable reason to ask people to 'stand back a bit' and 8ft seems about right.

The moment there is some kind of interaction of consequence, the 'spot' becomes an issue of civic concern, conflict, violence etc.. Cops may have to draw weapons, fight, god knows what in order to do their jobs.

You can watch/film or whatever from 8ft.

kevinpet2• 4 years ago

I'm sure this state rep is a scumbag in general and all that, but what the law says is:

* bystanders can't record within 8 ft of the police questioning a suspect, arresting someone, or dealing with a mental health case.

* the person police are interacting with is exempt and can record unless that interfere with the police operations. I.e. no guarantee you can hold your phone while handcuffed.

* the driver and passengers of a car pulled over are also explicitly exempt.

I think the opposition to this is a knee jerk over reaction comes across as just ... not rooted in reality.

If you insist on getting up in arms about Arizona's contempt for the first amendment, I encourage you to go burn a flag and dare them to arrest you for violating https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/03703.htm

Justin_K• 4 years ago

8 ft seems pretty reasonable... Not sure why people are upset over this. Police officers can't question and keep track of bystanders hanging over their shoulders. Am I missing something?

x86_64Ubuntu• 4 years ago

Because interfering with police is already illegal, and the law only deals with RECORDING police officers which is kind of peculiar if the concern for safety was legitimate.

rahimnathwani• 4 years ago

You might be able to take a decent recording from 8 feet away, but:

- there may be obstructions or bystanders closer to the incident, partially or fully blocking your view

- you may only be able to see clearly from a limited range of angles, and they may all point off the sidewalk into the road, meaning you need to risk your life to get a usable shot

mellosouls2• 4 years ago

I don't know what the answer is here but I have sympathy with police trying to do their job with hostile bystanders recording their every move and uploading to to YouTube in edited contextless hatchet jobs intended to ridicule or undermine.

Of course there are bad cops where video has provided useful evidence of their behaviour but for ordinary professional police officers it must add a very unpleasant dimension to already stressful situations.

I don't know the law at all but I would hope that any liberal enabling of filming is constrained by dissemination that identifies individuals without very good reason.

Daishiman2• 4 years ago

How is recording hostile? If anything it's definitive proof that their job is being done accordingly or not.

Of course, the reason this happens is because police in the US are just another group of organized thugs.

mellosouls2• 4 years ago

That was a prime example of the hostility.

spoonjim• 4 years ago

This doesn't seem that unreasonable. You don't need to get closer than 8 feet to record police misconduct, and getting closer than 8 feet to an active arrest is definitely pretty goddamn close. The 8 foot perimeter seems perfectly reasonable.

ed_blackburn• 4 years ago

The notion of policing without consent feels so alien to me. As a UK citizen I used to take this for granted, but wonder if the social contract in the UK will be broken in favour of the US in the future. I hope not. I feel for the people of Arizona.

BiteCode_dev• 4 years ago

8ft is 2.4m, it's not that long, it's the lenght of a small car. With current modern resolutions and zooms, you can even read the name of cops on their plaque from that distance.

I don't think it's going to prevent much recording. In fact, the recording are probably be of much more quality: instead of close ups that doesn't show much actions, we will see the a bigger context. Most useful videos are from at least 8 ft away.

I understand the author of the law doesn't have a great background in the US and cops have terrible reputation in this country. So it's probable there is an abuse path I don't see here.

But if I haven't been given that context, the law would not have seen excessive: in a law enforcement context, you don't want every body to park too close to the hot spot. Also, there is this annoying tendency of people with a camera to put it in your face, or to not mind their surrounding.

Given an arrest can be tensed, 8ft sound like it make sense. What am I missing, as a French person not understanding all the weird american social details ?

csydas4• 4 years ago

It's not so much the specific distance as the limitation and illegal "zone" that now exists around officers, a moving target for when you can suddenly ve performing something illegal that wasn't illegal a few centimeters ago. A cop leaning a bit or just shifting their weight is enough to make you a criminal.

The main reason there is such concern over this is because the power and corruption in many police forces and a lack of accountability for misbehavior of police, combined with the silliness of such a concept of no recording zone that now surrounds officers.

The issue isn't about how practical it is to record a police officer, it's that rather than address institutional corruption and misbehavior, there is a very vague law with ridiculous premises invented that gives police the ability to issue fines and arrests. Proof of misbehavior can be confiscated by a sudden movement by any police officer. It's a very strange power to give police officers.

Hnrobert427• 4 years ago

If you are able to position yourself at a safe distance down to the centimeter, you probably also have the super power to move when the officer shifts weight.

The easy solution is to post up at 15 feet and vigilantly adapt. If you are filming an intense arrest, I would hope you would maintain that sort of situational awareness anyway.

I certainly understand your concerns about abuse of power. However, giving officers room to do their job is not “very strange” nor is the premise “ridiculous.” Indeed, moving bystanders back to a reasonable distance might reduce tension and the likelihood of misbehavior

Yaina• 4 years ago

The issue is not the precise distance, but that police officers can arrest you for being too close.

Let's say you were 4m away and got arrested anyways. The officer stopped you from filming and it deterred others to start filming too.

Even if the charges get dropped later on (which they might not), the police already succeeded in stopping you from filming.

Hnrobert427• 4 years ago

Once you are being arrested, you are no longer a bystander, so you may continue filming.

I understand your fear of the chilling effect this may have, but I would guess there will be just as many people who now feel empowered to say “This is my right. I’m 8 ft away.”

JKCalhoun• 4 years ago

I feel like my dash cam could get me arrested if the cop approaches my car.

Hnrobert427• 4 years ago

I think the law excludes the restriction when filming in a confined structure. I don’t know if a car qualifies, but as the intention is to prevent interference, it arguably could qualify.

ProjectArcturis2• 4 years ago

abuse path

The cop doesn't want you recording, moves closer to you, and arrests you.

ryanmercer3• 4 years ago

Except that isn't what it is for. It's so when someone is being lawfully detained, you don't get 30 people circling the officer(s) shouting things and exciting one another, while recording and blocking view and the movement of officers.

It's purely a safety thing. You don't want random people close to you while you are dealing with something

These videos can be graphic:

- Here protestors drag an officer into the crowd and savagely beat him https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Le07VPqBZ58

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sw3F91w6D78 here is a video of onlookers recording agitating one another, several of which are standing in the street and blocking police vehicles.

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H40vEOOs5z0 here are protestors, standing around filming each other, assaulting a motorcycle officer on his motorcycle as he tries to drive away from them

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvDwWSl-sVE here officers try to restrain a felon, in felony possession of a firearm, that had tried to assault officers while a felon unlawfully possessing a firearm, as people surrounded them to hold their phones as close to them as possible to take footage, then as 3 of them try to subdue the suspect that continued, while armed, to try and resist then has to escalate to non-lethal violence of gasp punching the guy to try to get him to submit. At 3:42 an onlooker throws a full trash can at the officers that are actively trying to handcuff an ARMED FELON that is fighting tooth and nail to escape.

Etc.

It's hard enough to deal with a life or death situation without an angry mob of people standing around shouting shoving their phone in your face.

papito• 4 years ago

I hope that the strikedown of Miranda Rights will not be as much of a shock to people as Roe was. They are going to have to back-edit thousands of episodes of Law and Order.

the_only_law2• 4 years ago

Funny because half these cops shows love glorifying illegal activity. Just make sure the villain of the episode is something really bad like a terrorist and violating their rights is cool and ok.

ETH_start• 4 years ago

It seems like a reasonable law.

celdon25• 4 years ago

I was held at gunpoint after getting too close with my camera (which wasn't that close actually, much more than 8 feet, more like 30-50) while recording an arrest in Mesa, AZ. I was the one who actually called the cops on the dudes that were threatening a guy with a bat. Would prefer to leave it at that as it wasn't a good experience.

Arizona makes it illegal for bystanders to record cops at close range

Related Stories