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

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.

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.

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.

Ya I get it, but by acting against hypothetically bad intentions pre-emptively, it creates a terrible loop that we probably shouldn't embrace. I believe there are bad cops, but I don't presume cops are bad and have no reason to. Maybe some people do, maybe a lot of people do, but not me.

We also don't want to make many other laws with this line of reasoning. That's how we lose rights

There is an explicit exemption for people filming from 8+ feet away.

The current interference law requires a witness to physically interfere.

I’m sorry, but what would “non-physical interference” even mean in this context? Should a police officer be allowed to arrest me for interference because my tone is insufficiently deferential, hurting their feelings and thereby impairing their abilities?

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.