Read the law. Police activity is defined as: questioning a suspect, conducting a search or arrest, or detaining an emotionally unstable person.

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.

So, when a cop walks up to you, and tells you to stop filming, and you tell him that you've read the law, and he tells you that he knows the law, and that you need to stop filming, or he will arrest you, who do you think will come out the winner of this curbside legal debate?

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.

> Read the law.

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?

- Police begin questioning a suspect.

- You begin recording from 8 ft away.

- Police continue questioning the suspect, but move 1 ft towards you.

- You're now breaking the law.