The purpose of this law is to protect the police state.
This was discussed prior - a police officer standing next to you isn’t included in the defined police activity.
Before this law: I as a citizen can record a police activity reasonably from anywhere. Even up close as long as I am not interfering for which I can already get arrested
After this law: I as a citizen am never sure if it is a good idea to record because the new law can have many interpretations. Do I want to risk filming and getting approached by a Bad Cop on a Power trip who will tell me it is illegal to record ?
That was already the case. If you assume bad intent, this law changes nothing. If you assume good intent, this law is codifying reasonable behavior.
Why did one of the officers at the George Floyd killing walk over to the camera man, and tell him to stop filming? If he has this law behind him, he wouldn't have covered for the murder by also interpreting it in a self-serving manner?
If you're in that situation, what exactly do you think you're going to win by getting into a legal debate with a cop?
The real yikes here is the presumption that the police will behave legally, honorably, and with the public's interests in mind. They don't. It's not in their culture to do it, it's not in our culture to enforce that they do.
Although if you then get arrested, you'd fall under the exception for persons subject to police contact. So it all works out in the end!
If you record and they start questioning you, you are exempt from 8 ft.
If they try to arrest you, you are exempt from 8 ft.
If they claim you are emotionally unstable, you are exempt from 8 ft.
If you are just a bystander, you need to stay 8 ft away from the police activity.
What do you think will happen to you?
What do you think will happen to the officer when we discover that his legal interpretation is incorrect?
The police don't actually need to know the law they are enforcing. And it's no sweat off their backs when they are wrong about the details.
I did, or at least tried to. That's why I put "enforcing the law" in quotes.
Maybe I read the wrong law? In https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/laws/0376.pdf, the definition of "law enforcement activity" includes this, from section E(2):
> CONDUCTING AN ARREST, ISSUING A SUMMONS OR ENFORCING THE LAW
My point is that "enforcing the law" seems like a very broad umbrella. Prior to this law being written, I think I'd be on OK ground if I was filming an arrest from 10 feet away and an unrelated police officer came up to me and told me to stop.
Now, it's less clear to me. The officer who comes up and tells me to stop clearly thinks he is enforcing the law. Am I now breaking the law if I don't stop recording?
- You begin recording from 8 ft away.
- Police continue questioning the suspect, but move 1 ft towards you.
- You're now breaking the law.
Unless they are enforcing the law. Which they will be, because they will be enforcing this law.
Yikes. Like 90% of the comments on this throw out wild scenarios that clearly don’t apply if you read the law which is less than one page.
The law will be abused by the cops on the ground, this is 100% a sure thing going to happen, it will be used to ruin someone life. I mean that legitimately because unlike popular opinion of internet commenters on the law, a simple arrest can have life alter consequences including job loss, you could end able on any number of mug shot sites that could impact your ability to be hired get rental property, all kinds of things.
Let alone if you are convicted under this law, or if they try to arrest you can you reflexively pull your arm away... bam now your a felon resisting arrest...
So keep "reading the one page law" and if you think it is no issue I would encourage you to go record on some police at 8.1 feet way, do that enough I am sure you will have a different opinion in just a few interactions
You could illegally film someone else’s arrest closer than 8ft.
When the cops arrests you (unlikely it’s a misdemeanor) you’re free to film your own interaction.
Your certainty is completely unwarranted.
Here is a lawyer from Arizona talking about it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Id3RJ3tCuM
It's a short bill, but it has complex implications, especially considering that it's somewhat self-referential (law about law enforcement). It's going to be a mess in practice.
Yeah, people don't because they're afraid of the police and don't want to get involved.
One "solution" to that is to, as Kavanagh seems to favor, make people even more afraid... the opposite approach is to protect them and make them less afraid.
Since there's nothing inherently wrong with filming police, the government should do the latter. In fact, the government should be encouraging the filming of police because police time and again have abused their power and betrayed the people's trust and their own duty.
Instead, this bassackwards law makes people more afraid.
That’s already illegal.
> I don’t agree
You don’t disagree either (yet), because that statement doesn’t contradict the parent comment.
The parent comment is highlighting the poisonous way Kavanagh engages in politics discourse. You’re demonstrating it.
Yes, cops already have leeway to maintain a safe distance between themselves and spectators, but as others have said, this just puts an exact number on a fuzzy limit the courts have already supported.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
We also don't want to make many other laws with this line of reasoning. That's how we lose rights
The current interference law requires a witness to physically interfere.
Even physical interference is an extremely broad standard, encompassing everything from “resisting” to simply failing to move out of the way fast enough for their tastes.
Absent a specific example of “non-physical interference” actually interfering with a police activity, the entire category seems pretextual and ripe for abuse.
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 ?
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".
Unless you think it really is just a singular point in which case any large situation makes the distance restriction meaningless...
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.)
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.
Having lived in 5 states including NY and CA, I'd call those two shitholes before I called AZ a shithole.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio
https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/us-department-justice-fi...
Literally part of a Neo-Nazi gang: 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-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_Of...
Common sense tells me Kavanagh is a manipulative bullshitter. I am so tired of this governmental and corporate double-speak.
This should not require any new laws. If you are interfering with official police business, it's already illegal. If you are not interfering, then recording them should not be a problem.
The response itself is a classic manipulation technique. You add more words to a statement without changing its meaning, but confusing people about its purpose.