Arizona Makes It Illegal for Bystanders to Record Cops at Close Range

[ruet]

Source: Ars Technica

The same week that a federal judge sentenced ex-cop Derek Chauvin to more prison time for killing George Floyd, Arizona passed a law making it harder to record police by limiting how close bystanders can be while recording specified law enforcement activity. Chauvin was convicted in part because a recording showing his attack on Floyd at close proximity went viral. It was filmed by a teenager named Darnella Frazier while she was standing “a few feet away.”

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.

Sponsored by Republican state representative John Kavanagh, the law known as H.B. 2319 makes it illegal to record police at close range. In a USA Today op-ed, 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.”

This week, Kavanagh has succeeded in making close-range recording illegal in Arizona, with only a few exceptions. Perhaps most critically, the person involved in the police activity—someone being questioned, arrested, or handled by police—can record, as long as it doesn’t interfere with police actions. The same exception extends to anyone recording while in a vehicle involved in a police stop.

Read more: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/07/arizona-makes-it-illegal-for-bystanders-to-record-cops-at-close-range/?comments=1&unread=1

[erronis]

1. 8 feet away seems reasonable. Cell cameras take darned good pictures from a distance.

Of course the more distance between the photographer and the incident the more chances that the police can obstruct the view (body, car, etc.)

[ruet]

4. So, When You're 8ft Away and Officers Walk to You?

Eight more feet? Then when they walk up to you again? Eight more feet? ...ad infinitum.

[RockRaven]

10. Yep, cops are already planning how to best abuse this, and train each other to do so routinely...

New standard operating procedure.

[ruet]

17. The Folks Who Support This Don't Seem to Think More Than 5 Seconds Ahead.

Cops always appear to not know or understand the laws they are employed to enforce. You can bet your arse they'll know this one like "Happy Birthday".

[mopinko]

41. well said.

[AllTooEasy]

58. I suggest that everyone reads the actual law

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

1 Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:
2 Section 1. Title 13, chapter 37, Arizona Revised Statutes, is
3 amended by adding section 13-3732, to read:
4 13-3732. Unlawful video recording of law enforcement
5 activity; classification; definition
6 A. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON TO KNOWINGLY MAKE A VIDEO RECORDING
7 OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY IF THE PERSON MAKING THE VIDEO RECORDING IS
8 WITHIN EIGHT FEET OF WHERE THE PERSON KNOWS OR REASONABLY SHOULD KNOW THAT
9 LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY IS OCCURRING, EITHER RECEIVES OR HAS PREVIOUSLY
10 RECEIVED A VERBAL WARNING FROM A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER THAT THE PERSON
11 IS PROHIBITED FROM MAKING A VIDEO RECORDING OF A LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY
12 WITHIN EIGHT FEET OF THE ACTIVITY AND CONTINUES TO MAKE A VIDEO RECORDING
13 OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY WITHIN EIGHT FEET OF THE ACTIVITY. IF THE
14 LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY IS OCCURRING IN AN ENCLOSED STRUCTURE THAT IS ON
15 PRIVATE PROPERTY, A PERSON WHO IS AUTHORIZED TO BE ON THE PRIVATE PROPERTY
16 MAY MAKE A VIDEO RECORDING OF THE ACTIVITY FROM AN ADJACENT ROOM OR AREA
17 THAT IS LESS THAN EIGHT FEET AWAY FROM WHERE THE ACTIVITY IS OCCURRING,
18 UNLESS A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER DETERMINES THAT THE PERSON IS INTERFERING
19 IN THE LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY OR THAT IT IS NOT SAFE TO BE IN THE AREA
20 AND ORDERS THE PERSON TO LEAVE THE AREA.
21 B. NOTWITHSTANDING SUBSECTION A OF THIS SECTION, A PERSON WHO IS
22 THE SUBJECT OF POLICE CONTACT MAY RECORD THE ENCOUNTER IF THE PERSON IS
23 NOT INTERFERING WITH LAWFUL POLICE ACTIONS, INCLUDING SEARCHING,
24 HANDCUFFING OR ADMINISTERING A FIELD SOBRIETY TEST. THE OCCUPANTS OF A
25 VEHICLE THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF A POLICE STOP MAY RECORD THE ENCOUNTER IF
26 THE OCCUPANTS ARE NOT INTERFERING WITH LAWFUL POLICE ACTIONS.
27 C. THIS SECTION DOES NOT ESTABLISH A RIGHT OR AUTHORIZE ANY PERSON
28 TO MAKE A VIDEO RECORDING OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY.
29 D. A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS A CLASS 3 MISDEMEANOR.
30 E. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, "LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY"
31 MEANS ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
32 1. QUESTIONING A SUSPICIOUS PERSON.
33 2. CONDUCTING AN ARREST, ISSUING A SUMMONS OR ENFORCING THE LAW.
34 3. HANDLING AN EMOTIONALLY DISTURBED OR DISORDERLY PERSON WHO IS
35 EXHIBITING ABNORMAL BEHAVIOR.

[AllTooEasy]

12. I agree. Standing closer than 8 ft away from police activity is dangerous to everyone involved

A cop could easily assume that you are trying to help the suspect get away, or trying to attack the cop. Then you get shot or your butt kicked!

Use two fingers on the camera's digital screen to zoom in. My android can zoom into a person's retinas from 8 ft away.

[Evolve Dammit]

2. Hello Police State AZ! Just for POC though, right? Whites are exempt I'm sure.

[wackadoo wabbit]

25. No, actually, in AZ the cops are equal-opportunity assholes /nt

[Evolve Dammit]

47. great. They shoot anyone. Sounds like a state I will never visit. Done with TX and FL too.

[ChazInAz]

70. Oh, yeah!

Marana cops are the worst.
Nearly got shot by a 'roid raging pig who stopped me for having an expired license plate on a truck I'd just purchased minutes before from a friend.

[IronLionZion]

26. Arizona cops have shot and killed unarmed whites

equal opportunity murder behind a badge

[dchill]

32. Open-minded cops. So to speak.

[Evolve Dammit]

46. Exemplary

[genxlib]

3. This distance is entirely reasonable

However, 10 to 1 odds say police will try to use this law in a vague and threatening way to bully people into submission.

it is always a good idea to know your rights.

[exboyfil]

7. That is what they did in Florida

It got so bad they suspended enforcement of the law. Not sure of the current status. I don't see approaching closer than six feet (or eight feet like the law requires) a cop doing an arrest anyway. They should have just left it that the police can order you back six (or eight) feet and failure to do that is not abiding by a lawful command. Recording should be irrelevant.

[LoisB]

23. I agree 100%.

[Martin68]

39. And it will the cop's word against yours if he says you were closer than 8 feet.

[Marthe48]

5. Make sure you have a great camera phone

and use the zoom feature if necessary. If the cops are doing their job correctly, they should be glad to have video proof. If they don't want to be filmed, they know they are doing something wrong.

The facists are out of control.

[exboyfil]

11. Ding, ding, ding

We have a winner. Approaching a cop is a potential safety issue for the cop and you so I don't have an issue with a lawful order to move back six feet (the law says eight) so long as the cop is prepared in the report to justify the decision to give the lawful order.

Making it specific to recording smacks of concealment which is never good.

[Lil Liberal Laura]

6. Reach into My Vagina. . .

but don't you dare zoom in on Officer Bulli!!!

[OldBaldy1701E]

51. Yep!

[SpankMe]

8. Eight feet?

I wonder what the impetus for this law is? I wasn't aware that there was an epidemic of bystanders getting cameras right up in to the faces of police while they're wrestling with subjects. Was this a real problem before?

[jmowreader]

54. It's becoming a HUGE problem

Investigate "First Amendment auditors."

[MenloParque]

9. Tyrants hate transparency

[EX500rider]

76. Do you really think modern phones can't take a good enough video from 8 ft

[sop]

13. "Cops are playing music during filmed encounters to game YouTube's copyright striking"

"The police are attempting to use YouTube's stringent copyright system to keep people from posting recordings of encounters with law enforcement."

"In a video posted Thursday by the Anti Police-Terror Project (APTP)...Alameda County Sheriff's deputy David Shelby pulled out his phone and began playing Taylor Swift's 'Blank Space' during an encounter. He openly admitted, 'it can't be posted to YouTube.'"

"After a back and forth, the deputy said, 'You can record all you want, I just know it can't be posted to YouTube.'"

https://mashable.com/article/police-playing-music-copyright-youtube-recording

I suppose one could always mute the sound, and use subtitles.

[exboyfil]

15. In Orange County a cop did that

and the state representative showed up to set him straight (disturbing the neighborhood in the night).

[James48]

14. Warning!

Police State- no quarter given to ordinary citizens freely exercising first amendment rights to gather news.

Stay the f away from Arizona.

[LoisB]

18. How much of this has to do with transparency and how much with those so-called First

Amendment Auditors I see on YouTube? Eight feet is reasonable.

[ruet]

19. Do You Have A Problem With "So-Called First Amendment Auditors"?

I sure as hell don't. They are doing a service.

Let's play hypothetical. Darnella Fraizer is recording the police interaction with George Floyd. Tou Thao J., Alexander Kueng and Thomas Lane then move to within 8 ft of her and anyone else recording so that they then have to create another 8 ft of space. Rinse and repeat until she is and everyone else are no longer able to record an accurate representation of everything that transpired. There are already laws on the books that deal with REAL obstruction. This law will be weaponized to keep people from recording misconduct.

[LoisB]

21. My dear Ruet, I do not have a problem with cop-watchers or First Amendment Auditors. I have a

problem with the "so-called" First Amendment Auditors who antagonize private citizens, police officers, and government workers for the sole purpose of creating YouTube content in order to get paid. People like Glenn Cerio, Long Island Audits, Denver Audits and many more. Where is the test of the First Amendment when someone sticks a camera in your face while you are standing in line in the post office or the DMV. Where is the test when they are recording a victim who is attempting to report a crime in the lobby of the police station and are asked to cease and the response is "you are in public, I have a right to record" or who think they have a right to record in a courtroom without prior consent?

If the criteria is 8 feet from the scene, I don't have a problem with that. If the criteria is 8 feet from the officer, and the officer moves toward the person recording thereby negating the 8 feet, I have a problem with that.

Legitimate cop-watchers and legitimate First Amendment auditors are a good thing. That is why I said "so-called"; the ones who CREATE antagonistic situations solely for YouTube views (which translates to YouTube pay).

[ruet]

30. But This Law Specifically Bans "Recording" Within 8 ft Not Merely Existing Within 8 ft.

Why is that?

[LoisB]

33. So I can record at 9 feet but not 8? Someone posted the law, I'm going to read it before I say

something totally wrong.

[ruet]

53. I Think You Miss My Point.

The law doesn't say you can't stand closer than eight feet. Only that you can't record within 8 ft. It's not about officer safety or distraction. It's about filming. Basically, it's BS.

[Mosby]

71. Why outside of synagogues?

Seems shady as fuck to me.

https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-temple-shooting-you-tube-auditor-20190215-story.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/02/15/what-is-auditing-why-did-youtuber-get-shot-doing-it/

[Lancero]

20. 8 feet seems reasonable, then the cop moves a few feet closer to you. Closer... Closer... Closer...

And now your camera is no longer 8 feet away. At which point you move farther away... And the cop moves closer... closer... closer... And now you're arrested because they just warned you off, and here you are still recording within 8 feet of a cop.

[LoisB]

28. The cop should not be allowed to breach the 8 feet either although I can absolutely see your

scenario happening. I have no idea what the recorder's recourse would be.

[The Jungle 1]

24. I really like the First Admendment folks

In fact I am addicted to their videos. They are forcing the cops to play fair.
But eight feet is plenty close enough.

[LoisB]

31. I like the ones where the cop is giving unlawful orders and gets taken down a peg, especially when

it's by a senior officer or someone who knows what their rights are.

[The Jungle 1]

60. Yes those are the ones that expose and educate.

Most of them revolve around citizens not wanting to ID. I don't know why so many police think we have to ID.
The other interesting ones are when police illegally enter a home. For some reason police think that is also ok.
This content is going to have a short shelf life. The education of police is occurring.

[Violet_Crumble]

64. If you're being detained you need to provide ID

It's not rocket science and not an unreasonable expectation. I do enjoy the sovshit videos where they shriek away about not complying, and travelling not driving, and being a free woman and man, not a corporation. The ones where they go to court with that crap is even funnier, though it's all a huge waste of taxpayers money in the long run.

[The Jungle 1]

80. If you are arrested you need to provide an ID.

You do not have to provide ID for a detainment. Police can do a pat down they can not search you. Police must have reasonable ***articulate*** suspicion to search you or ID you or arrest you. Papers please is not how f American freedom works.
Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian ultranationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by dictatorial power, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition. Wiki
You continue to read my posts and respond. If you don't like what I post stop reading it. The same goes for the auditors. If you don't like what they are doing don't watch the video. This is America and we have some freedom left. The police and the right are trying to remove our remaining freedom. They want us to be like Hungary. Hungary is a border line fascist state which republicans love. CPAC just had their convention in fascist Hungary.
These auditors that you complain about are pushing back. Yes they are making a difference.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

83. +100. nt

[MarineCombatEngineer]

82. Wrong,

If you're detained, you can't provide false name, if you're arrested, then you have to provide ID or your name and birthdate.

And here in America, we have the right to privacy, IE: the 4th Amendment, to be secure in our papers, which includes our ID.

You may think it's reasonable to have to show ID without RAS, reasonable, articulable suspicion that a crime has been, is about to be or is in the process of being committed, but American's don't for the most part.

[The Jungle 1]

86. It is amazing how so many Americans will roll over to the request of ID.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

87. IKR?

I shake my head in wonder at how many American's just don't know their rights, or how many non American's think we should give up our rights to cops.

I love these 1A auditors, some are assholes, but for the most part, most are truly trying to educate the police, public employees and the American public in general of what our rights are.

I didn't spend 35 years of my life defending these rights just to give them up just because some asshole cop, or public employee thinks they can violate those rights.

My rant for the day.

[The Jungle 1]

88. Yea, some auditors are assholes.

Some police are also assholes. I support good police!

A 76-year-old woman who was knocked to the ground by Baltimore County police officers during a service call was awarded $630,000 in a settlement reached Wednesday with the county, her attorney said. MSN

Baltimore police officer conspired with biker gang to sell drugs, guns, prosecutors say Fox

[MarineCombatEngineer]

90. I support good cops also, and most cops are good, but it's when they don't speak

up and condemn the bad cops, then that gives the whole department a bad name.

Fortunately, with the advent and proliferation of camera/video phones, more and more bad cops are being held to account for their actions.

I really like the one with Long Island Audit where the cops gets caught on his body camera saying that 20 years ago that mf'er would be dead and he would do it.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

89. ...

If you're being detained you need to provide ID

Maybe in Australia, but not here in America.

[Violet_Crumble]

52. If you're addicted to them, you'd be a fan of Glenn Cerio?

And also of the ones who go into post offices and private businesses? Someone addicted to those content creators would surely be a fan of those videos. I mean, in the world of frauditors and their addicted fans, racist and sexist abuse is just great if it's flung at cops....

[The Jungle 1]

59. Why are you attacking me?

Civility
No personal attacks or flaming

[Violet_Crumble]

63. I asked you a pretty easy question

That's not attacking. If you're as you claim addicted to those type of things in YouTube, what do you think of those who harrass post office staff and those like Glenn Cerrio who launch revolting racial and sexist abuse at random cops so they can get views on YouTube? Anyone who isn't aware of that doesn't know the first thing about the frauditor/sovshit movement.

[The Jungle 1]

67. How about this

Express your opinion about issues without inferring something about ME.
If you don't like what I post then don't read it.
None of us come here to be judged or ridiculed.

[Violet_Crumble]

79. How about just answering simple questions?

It seems pretty simple to me. I can't control what you decide to read into what I wrote. That's all on you. What I inferred is that many of the most prominent 1A auditors are racist and sexist, amongst other unsavoury attributes like anti-semitism and anti-vaxx. That's not saying that someone who says they're addicted to those vids on YouTube is sexist or racist themselves, I'm saying very clearly that the person who says they're addicted must not be very knowledgeable about that movement not to have noticed.

Has that cleared it up for you? Or will I return to another post telling me I shouldn't read your posts? btw, that doesn't make any sense. You have to read a post before deciding whether you like it or not, so it's impossible not to read it. Also, I don't work in terms of liking or not liking what people post. I just reply to posts that interest me.

[The Jungle 1]

81. I have zero responsibility to respond to anyone.

I don't have to talk to the police or anyone. I think it is one of those Constitutional Amendment things.
My sister is a lawyer. My sisters daughter is a lawyer. My sisters step son is a lawyer. My sisters step daughters husband is a lawyer. They all tell me the same thing. Shut up and when you are done shutting up, shut up shutting up.
It has always fascinated me how upset controlling people, like police, get when you don't do what they demand. Police have no authority over anybody. Unless a law is broken and they arrest you.
Auditors help police understand their position.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

84. +100. nt

[ruet]

69. So All 1A Auditors Are Sovereign Citizens Now?

We we don't know about 1A auditors because we don't know who this POS is? Did someone take a picture of you while you were in public?

[Violet_Crumble]

78. There's a big crossover between frauditors, sov cits, anti-mask.vaxx types and RW types

If you don't know who Glenn Cerrio is, I'd take a pretty safe bet that you aren't familiar with those 1A auditor types. There's no way you can float around those videos on YouTube without encountering him or Paypal Patty, who's another whiny woman hating type. If you spend a bit more time delving into that world you'll spot a few rare ones who actually do what they say they're doing, and they do it politely and respectfully and aren't looking for conflict so they can stick it on YouTube and then crowdfund for their bail when they get arrested.

There's a big crossover with sovcits and flat earthers, and also Karens. Just listen for 'I do not comply!' 'I'm travelling, not driving!' and other quaint sovcit nonsense. And most importantly it's heavily infused with RW ideology. I'm not really understanding how anyone at DU would think these morons are something to be supported.

In answer to your question, my family and friends have taken many pics of me in public. Why do you ask?

[MarineCombatEngineer]

75. You're absolutely wrong about Long Island Audit,

Every video of his that I've watched, and that's just about every audit he's done, he's been polite, respectful, calm and when the disruption happens, it's always the govt workers, they approach him first, not the other way around, they cause the problems, not him, and when the police arrive, he's respectful, yet firm, on his 1A right to record in public and refuse to show ID unless a crime is, has been or is about to be committed, and usually, he wins, as it should be.

The purpose of his audits is to let the general public, and govt employees know that filming where the public is allowed to be is perfectly legal and to stand up for your rights.

Granted, there are some that are assholes, but for the most part, most are doing us a great service by doing these audits, it keeps govt employees honest.

[Violet_Crumble]

77. Pretty sure I'm not wrong about him...

He's nowhere near Glenn Cerrio level, and I haven't heard him be sexist, racist or a RW nutjob, but he's a serial waste of space and a pest. He does that totally irritating 'Calm down. Calm down. Don't get upset!' at post office staff who ask him not to record in a post office. Also, if a Dutch YouTuber and me (I'm Australian) can comprehend what Poster 7 says, why can't he? Assuming he's an intelligent person, he does understand what it says, but he relies on conflict and getting in people's faces to generate hits on his videos, which gives him money. $$$ is his motivation, not some first amendment thingy, which is why I always watch third party clips on YouTube.

I'm going to post a video of Long Island Audit. I don't think his behaviour is polite and respectful at all when he's dealing with the post office staff. He's condescending, he's rude to them and he's trying to drag things out so he can get arrested.

Standing up for your rights is great. But what they do is standing up for their rights to be obnoxious pests. A good way to pick someone who's actually in it for the right reasons is they're not instigating trouble.

Here's the video. Ragical sped up his voice in parts coz there's lots of dead air, but I have a question about one sped up bit...why do they always ask for cops badge numbers? It's like they're playing lotto and they don't understand the difference between a legal requirement and a policy.

Not sure how anyone could watch this and think his behaviour is something to be encouraged...

[MarineCombatEngineer]

85. And guess what?

Every time he gets arrested, the charges are thrown out because HE understands the laws and the cops don't, but usually, the cops and postal workers do the walk of shame because they know HE'S right and they can't intimidate him.

As far as poster 7, HE understands it perfectly, that's why HE wins.

HE'S doing a great service by educating the public employees, and the public, of our right to film where the public is legally allowed to be.

Personally, I don't care what you or some Dutch youtuber think what Poster 7 says, judging by how many times HE prevails, at the scene or in the courts, HE'S in the right.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

91. Oh, BTW, there's also this:

https://www.dhs.gov/publication/operational-readiness-order-photography-and-videotaping-federal-facilities

https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Operational%20Readiness%20Order%20HQ-ORO-002-2018%20Photography%20and%20Videotaping%20....pdf

2018 DHS memo to ALL Federal facilities, property, buildings, etc, making it perfectly clear that absent any criminal activity, and bear in mind that photography cannot be deemed as a crime without, again, RAS, it is perfectly legal to photograph/video where the public is lawfully allowed to be.

[Violet_Crumble]

66. For anyone unfamiliar with 1A auditors, here's an intro

They're the furthest thing from LW or progressive you could think of. Most of them are people who make a living from stirring up reactions and putting them on YouTube so they can make money.

One of their leading lights was Glenn Cerrio, who used to frequent post offices, private businesses, anywhere cops were, and in one case a women's shelter. He had no qualms about filming small children over their mother's objections and singled out minority and female cops to throw abuse at. A really disgusting individual and not unique in that community.

I'm a bit of a fan of Ragical. He's good at laughing at the sheer inanity of these idiots

https://m.

[bullwinkle428]

22. The Supreme Court shouted to cops with a bullhorn : "WE HAVE YOUR BACKS!!!"

[The Jungle 1]

27. Remember cops are crafty

They started playing music at traffic stops. The music is copyrighted. You Tube won't let you play it.
All so they don't have to be transparent!

[xocetaceans]

29. The text of the bill and a link to the PDF of the bill...[The highlighting of Section B is mine]...

What constitutes "22 ...IF THE PERSON IS...23 NOT INTERFERING WITH LAWFUL POLICE ACTIONS, ..."? Is there a strict definition of that or is the definition fluid and at the discretion of the officer(s) who are on scene?

Senate Engrossed House Bill
law enforcement activity; recording prohibition

State of Arizona
House of Representatives
Fifty-fifth Legislature
Second Regular Session
2022

HOUSE BILL 2319

AN ACT
AMENDING TITLE 13, CHAPTER 37, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING SECTION
13-3732; RELATING TO LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES.

(TEXT OF BILL BEGINS ON NEXT PAGE)

....

1 Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:
2 Section 1. Title 13, chapter 37, Arizona Revised Statutes, is
3 amended by adding section 13-3732, to read:
4 13-3732. Unlawful video recording of law enforcement
5 activity; classification; definition
6 A. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON TO KNOWINGLY MAKE A VIDEO RECORDING
7 OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY IF THE PERSON MAKING THE VIDEO RECORDING IS
8 WITHIN EIGHT FEET OF WHERE THE PERSON KNOWS OR REASONABLY SHOULD KNOW THAT
9 LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY IS OCCURRING, EITHER RECEIVES OR HAS PREVIOUSLY
10 RECEIVED A VERBAL WARNING FROM A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER THAT THE PERSON
11 IS PROHIBITED FROM MAKING A VIDEO RECORDING OF A LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY
12 WITHIN EIGHT FEET OF THE ACTIVITY AND CONTINUES TO MAKE A VIDEO RECORDING
13 OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY WITHIN EIGHT FEET OF THE ACTIVITY. IF THE
14 LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY IS OCCURRING IN AN ENCLOSED STRUCTURE THAT IS ON
15 PRIVATE PROPERTY, A PERSON WHO IS AUTHORIZED TO BE ON THE PRIVATE PROPERTY
16 MAY MAKE A VIDEO RECORDING OF THE ACTIVITY FROM AN ADJACENT ROOM OR AREA
17 THAT IS LESS THAN EIGHT FEET AWAY FROM WHERE THE ACTIVITY IS OCCURRING,
18 UNLESS A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER DETERMINES THAT THE PERSON IS INTERFERING
19 IN THE LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY OR THAT IT IS NOT SAFE TO BE IN THE AREA
20 AND ORDERS THE PERSON TO LEAVE THE AREA.
21 B. NOTWITHSTANDING SUBSECTION A OF THIS SECTION, A PERSON WHO IS
22 THE SUBJECT OF POLICE CONTACT MAY RECORD THE ENCOUNTER IF THE PERSON IS
23 NOT INTERFERING WITH LAWFUL POLICE ACTIONS, INCLUDING SEARCHING,
24 HANDCUFFING OR ADMINISTERING A FIELD SOBRIETY TEST. THE OCCUPANTS OF A
25 VEHICLE THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF A POLICE STOP MAY RECORD THE ENCOUNTER IF
26 THE OCCUPANTS ARE NOT INTERFERING WITH LAWFUL POLICE ACTIONS.
27 C. THIS SECTION DOES NOT ESTABLISH A RIGHT OR AUTHORIZE ANY PERSON
28 TO MAKE A VIDEO RECORDING OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY.
29 D. A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS A CLASS 3 MISDEMEANOR.
30 E. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, "LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY"
31 MEANS ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
32 1. QUESTIONING A SUSPICIOUS PERSON.
33 2. CONDUCTING AN ARREST, ISSUING A SUMMONS OR ENFORCING THE LAW.
34 3. HANDLING AN EMOTIONALLY DISTURBED OR DISORDERLY PERSON WHO IS
35 EXHIBITING ABNORMAL BEHAVIOR.

- 1 -

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

[LoisB]

35. The whole thing seems to have been made moot by "C"

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

Maybe I am reading this wrong but hasn't the First Amendment already established the right of any person to make a video recording of law enforcement activity?

[xocetaceans]

42. I do not really know...

My guess at how to interpret section C is that that section represents a kind of boilerplate text that is meant to indicate that nothing said in the text of the bill should be construed to be the assertion of a new right or the assertion of some form of authorization for a specified act.

That being said, I think people and lower courts have claimed that the First Amendment does allow for the video/audio recording of law enforcement activity. This is what I could find that seems reputable (I'm again guessing here):


From the Electronic Frontier Foundation:

You Have a First Amendment Right to Record the Police
By Sophia Cope and Adam Schwartz
June 8, 2020

...

Your First Amendment Right to Record Police Exercising Their Official Duties in Public

You have a First Amendment right to record the police. Federal courts and the Justice Department have recognized the right of individuals to record the police. Although the Supreme Court has not squarely ruled on the issue, there is a long line of First Amendment case law from the high court that supports the right to record the police. And federal appellate courts in the First (update: this First Circuit case, too), Third, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits have directly upheld this right. EFF has advocated for this right in many amicus briefs.

Federal appellate courts typically frame the right to record the police as the right to record officers exercising their official duties in public. Thus, if the police officer is off-duty or is in a private space that you don’t also have a right to be in, your right to record the officer may be limited.

...

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/06/you-have-first-amendment-right-record-police

The part that seems worrisome here is that in which it is stated that "...the Supreme Court has not squarely ruled on the issue...." That seems to mean that should the law be challenged and end up being considered by the Supreme Court, this radical Supreme Court might decide that the First Amendment does not allow for the video recording of law enforcement activities. That would align with their displayed authoritarian tendencies.

So, that is my layman's interpretation for what it's worth.

[LoisB]

44. Thank you. Your layman's interpretation makes it clear to me. I agree, this Supreme Court may

decide that there is no right to record law enforcement. This new law may be the one they need as it would not surprise me if someone challenges the 8-foot rule. This court is looking for lawsuits they can rule on to strip us of more rights. Thank you again, I appreciate it.

[xocetaceans]

49. You're welcome. We'll have to see what happens with this. n/t

[iluvtennis]

34. 1984 is here.

[The Jungle 1]

61. So it is kinda ironic.

The people are watching the big brother. The book is about big brother watching the people.

[iluvtennis]

73. I think the twist from the book is we know BB is watching, but we're trying to keep it in check. n/t

[Joinfortmill]

36. Zoom lens

[Dysfunctional]

37. I would like to see how this would play out in court if you are at least 8 feet away

and another cop who is not physically working the arrest keeps walking towards you solely to make you back up further.

[azureblue]

45. so how is a cop

going to prove in court that he was less than 8 feet away from the camera? What's he going to do- carry an 8 foot long stick with him? It's hard enough to gauge the difference between 7 and 8 feet, as it is. And if the camera says one thing and the cop another, then that's going to create a problem with the cop's testimony. Any of it - IOW if the cop says 6 feet but the camera says 9, then anything else the cop is testifying to in the case is invalid.

And 8 feet away from ANY cop, or just the arresting scene? If they say "any cop" then, fine - wait until the cop moves, or someone else just go around him.. I thought that is what the yellow tape was for, anyway..

So, once again, dumb ass Repubs try a CYA trick and all it does is come back and bite them.

[Martin68]

38. The caveats at the end are encouraging, but this is typical right wing bullshit.

[bluestarone]

40. 8 feet today.

They got their start, i'm thinking. THIS will be abused by police, THAT i'm sure of! Like every right we have, we slowly lose. there will be a difference between the actual 8 feet, and the police 8 feet. Who will the court listen to?

[Shipwack]

43. Give a cop right feet, and they'll take a mile.

ACAB may not be completely accurate, but it’s the safe way to bet.

[Angry Bill]

48. It's a run around

Whenever the cop pulls you over now.Theyll tell you not to record them because they are in closer than 8 ft.

[AllTooEasy]

57. Great Point!

I rescind my support of this law. My girlfriend also noted that other potential police abuses, which have been mentioned above. Cops can tell you to step back if they feel that they are in danger, but not tell you to stop recording.

[The Jungle 1]

62. If the police are filming do they have to stay 8 feet away?

I am guessing that the person being investigated is allowed to film. Again just a guess.

[ripcord]

72. Yes there is an exception for in the law for people involved in the incident

[LudwigPastorius]

50. "...to protect law enforcement from being assaulted by unruly bystanders."

There's already a law against assault.

This is totally unnecessary.

[J_William_Ryan]

55. "Eight feet is reasonable."

That’s not the issue.

This measure is a bad faith effort by conservatives to manifest a chilling effect on private citizens lawfully recording agents of the state.

Fearful and ignorant of the law, citizens will simply stop recording police activity altogether – which is what Republicans want.

[Mawspam2]

56. So now cops are also experts in distance measurement?

Just like the laws they enforce, I suppose.

[Mysterian]

65. The Arizona government is simply attempting to discourage citizens from recording the police

and giving police a tool to do so. This is the road to a police state and fascism. There was no problem here that needed legislation. There are already laws against obstruction. This law specifically targets recording, which has become an important tool in proving police brutality and malfeasance, to include the planting of evidence.

[ck4829]

74. Chilling.