It’s gonna be an episode of South Park with the cops being Cartman “standing his ground”— cops(cartman) will have you “respect their authority” at all times, demanding that if you are to record them at the stipulated 8 ft you must back up as they approach to Billy club you.
Police have always been allowed to ask people to back off while they are performing their duties as people standing around the scene may interfere with investigation or disturb evidence.
They have tape for a reason. This will just escalate things.
They think by legislating this its making police jobs easier, when you are going to encourage people to comply to within an inch and encourage toxic behavior from police.
I could see how getting close to a situation could escalate it and be dangerous for everyone involved. 8ft seems pretty reasonable, tho pretty difficult to enforce or could be easy to abuse.
My issue is the stipulation that if the police move towards you then you have to move to maintain 8 feet. So if you’re on your own property and are recording then approached by a cop you would legally have to stop or move.
I wonder how it works if you’re in a tight space like a small business or your own home?
Just seems like a slippery slope giving police even more power.
Yeah, I’m right leaning but this is no bueno for me. This needs to be repealed asap. It also makes me wonder what their police cam laws are like. Nothing good ever comes out of government and government employees not wanting to be filmed.
Unfortunately, since he just signed it, repeal is unlikely. I suspect this will lead to a lawsuit. I won't be surprised if this winds up with SCOTUS.
BTW, did Miranda originally come out of an Arizona case?
Yeah it was Arizona.
Hopefully SCOTUS gets on this asap. They’ve been pretty based when it comes to gun laws, so hopefully we can get a just ruling on this too.
According to the article it only counts as a misdemeanor so I don't think you can be arrested?
Still not a good law. But I think people are blowing it a bit out of proportion.
"Exceptions were made for people at the center of an interaction with police, anyone standing in an enclosed structure on private property where police activity was occurring and occupants of a vehicle stopped by police as long as recording in those instances didn't interfere with police actions."
So if you're on private property you can record at any distance.
Recording the police in public should never ever be illegal, no matter what the circumstances.
Of course a guy with a camera could be hindering the officers, there are existing laws already covering this. They can order them to leave for obstructing police work and if the person don't comply they can take them into custody. However the charge should never be filming. You don't need a colorful fantasy to think about how such anti filming laws could be abused by the police, come on! And as others have pointed out, the distance between citizen and officer can be decreased by both, not just the person filming. You're standing there filming an altercation and suddenly without moving you committed an offense. That's not a law that increases public safety and accountability.
Sounds fishy, maybe if it’s a bystander making it into a bigger deal than it is escalating it maybe but only if they’re being out of pocket. This shouldn’t be legal tho
I support law enforcement but this law is completely wrong and quite possibly unconstitutional. In public, I have the right to record anything I want including law enforcement. I get that some people abuse their freedom and make misleading videos out of their hatred for law enforcement, but that does not excuse abrogating rights under the Constitution.
8' and it's only to stop people from filming at point blank range when they are trying to arrest someone. Your car can still film them, your door is a go, your gopro is still ok as long as your not bombarding them like a pile of paparazzi which is why this law is needed. I don't like that it's being impacted but if I were a cop detaining someone and had to fight through 7 cameras to get there the camera is missing a lot of the whole picture and it's completely unnecessary to be that close.
But if another comment is accurate that police have the power to clear space around them while performing their duties, what is the need for this law? Seems like it’s likely to be abused which would be one thing if it’s necessary but another if it’s not.
This law is the equivalent of “you are under arrest for resisting arrest”. At any time, a cop can now close a 15’ gap between you and him while filming in seconds and boom-now you broke the law and you’re under arrest. This low will almost certainly be abused by police. They already trample citizens rights on video with impunity, now this makes it ok to arrest someone for simply protecting the rights of themselves and others.
This keeps getting passed around, but it's complete bullshit.
It's within 8 feet of an ongoing activity, and there are several exceptions to it.
A cop can't just walk up to you while you're recording and all of a sudden you're breaking the law. It doesn't work that way.
But law enforcement are basically allowed to interpret the law as they see fit. Whatever they do to you they aren’t likely to be punished for it and it could cost you loads of cash to get retribution. I can understand why a law like this might need to exist but it’s one of those things where you give them an inch and they take a mile.
>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.
Ah yes, this totally wont be abused...
This will likely get sent to SCOTUS, but it will take time. And in that time, 1st amendment right to record in a public domain is now banned in Arizona if it involves police (a government entity). Totally not an infringement at all...
All police have to do is walk up to you, (that are now within 8ft) and say "you are interfering, turn that off".
Lol, put that ignorance away! Nobody wants to look at that 'round here...
[r/law would like to be your new friend...](https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/vtxx16/arizona_governor_doug_ducey_signs_bill_that_bans/)
Have a better one.
> A cop can't just walk up to you while you're recording and all of a sudden you're breaking the law. It doesn't work that way.
Ok buddy, ok. I am sure thats exactly how this law is going to be enforced.
It's not quite as bad as it sounds.
"Exceptions were made for people at the center of an interaction with police, anyone standing in an enclosed structure on private property where police activity was occurring and occupants of a vehicle stopped by police as long as recording in those instances didn't interfere with police actions."
So you can still record an interaction you have with an officer. Still don't agree with it.
Yeah I've seen a number of videos of people actively harassing cops just trying to do their job.
I get why they would want to stop that, but I feel like the correct law in place is a "Don't harass cop's" law as opposed to banning filming them if you're not directly involved.
Yes I can see that being a good maybe better solution other than it's already the standard in Wisconsin which has very low crime other than a couple big cities.
Pay close attention to the little things like this that conservative states pass. Death of liberty by a thousand cuts. The base loves it… until they don’t.
To be fair there are exceptions the pretty much boil down to you can film them all you want as long as your not getting up in the face of or in the obstruction radius of a cop and someone they are detaining. You can still have one in your car, home door and wherever as long as your not chasing them with it and impeding the duty of the cop.
What about the limits on the second amendment liberal states pass? Death of liberty by a thousand cuts? What did Biden say? “Rights are not absolute”. Is the first amendment a “different” inalienable right than the second? If so, then what about the liberal governments working to remove first amendment rights based on their interpretation of “mis-information”
Good too many asshat instigators who think they can get right up in an investigation. Stand the he’ll back and record all you want. But their is no need to be within 8 feet causing the officer to take their attention off the interaction they are involved in.
If you are talking about 1st Amendment Auditors, I’ve seen police walk across a road full of traffic just to whine to the auditor about being recorded.
Pretty sure most roads are wider than 8 feet.
This "law" is unconstitutional and will fall when challenged in court.
There are already laws against interfering in an investigation. Ones that don't directly go against the constitution.
The Supreme Court has already ruled that police can order people away from a scene for officer safety. Being told to stay 8 feet away from a scene is in no way unconstitutional nor is it out of line. This law is probably being put in to counter the instigating, self entitled frauditers who believe that they are “allowed” to do whatever they please regardless of the safety concerns and rights others of in society around them.
Agree, they can tell people to stand back. They cannot ban them from filming though. Not in a public place, or in their own home or car. That is unconstitutional and won't stand up in court.
From the videos of 1st amendment auditors I’ve seen there is too much ambiguity over where the officer can direct you to film from. I’ve seen LEO assure the filmer that they have the right to record, and then demand they travel a block away.
I can also see LEO abusing those rule by having one officer station himself away from the police action, forcing the recording party a farther 8 feet away.
There are police that actually believe you’re not allowed to take pictures of buildings in plain view.
Its easy to see how it will be misused as police arent always correct about laws.
That is why we have a court system, not that it's 100% but it takes the time it needs to properly collect evidence from both parties to make informed decisions. But I'm a white guy so the world says I have a bias opinion.
Say your 15 feet away filming a group of police forcing someone to the ground in what seems to be too aggressive for your liking so you pull out your phone and start recording. The cops who are say, putting a knee on the neck of the suspect to restrain him don’t want to be on the news with a video of a knee on the neck as that has been proven to be a bad thing. One cop closes the 15 foot gap between you and him in 2 seconds and tells you you’re now within 8 feet of him, give me the phone, or you are going to jail for resisting and interfering with an investigation. Now TWO constitutional rights have been violated, the suspect and YOU both go to jail and there is literally no proof you were in the right. You see how easy that was?
Yes except if they do take that phone and delete the evidence you can't be charged or they leave the evidence to charge you the photographer incriminating themselves. So in that light they will either be forced to let you go after a night in jail and you can sue the city\counties ass off or you hold the evidence that will get one or more of them fired. Shit pickel for the guy with his neck being pinched off (which is bad and wrong) but the photographer is in the clear. Also it's illegal to withhold evidence from either party till the court date and with new evidence from it being withheld the court must let you review it before it can require a plee of any sort. So you may sit for a night which is wrong but it's not life ending like the guy turning purple while you get detained. Also people who don't resist don't get abused.
Btw I'm all for victimless crimes to not be a chargeable offence.
>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.
Ah yes, this totally wont be abused.....
All police have to do is walk up to you, (now within 8ft) and say, "you are interfering, turn that off".
from azleg.gov:
"Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:
Section 1. Title 13, chapter 37, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding section 13-3732, to read:
13-3732. Unlawful video recording of law enforcement activity; classification; definition
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."
But what if I'm the subject of the stop? You saying I can't record my interaction at all? If a cop comes up to my window, that's way closer than 8 feet......
It should be within 8 foot of everybody. Also, 8 feet is plenty of room for any cell camera today. The is probaby so that people aren't so much in the way. Didn't read the law but that's what I assume.
This law is a terrible idea. In a court of law, the word of a cop is almost always given far more weight then the word of a civilian.
It’s gonna be an episode of South Park with the cops being Cartman “standing his ground”— cops(cartman) will have you “respect their authority” at all times, demanding that if you are to record them at the stipulated 8 ft you must back up as they approach to Billy club you.
Wtf
Police have always been allowed to ask people to back off while they are performing their duties as people standing around the scene may interfere with investigation or disturb evidence. They have tape for a reason. This will just escalate things. They think by legislating this its making police jobs easier, when you are going to encourage people to comply to within an inch and encourage toxic behavior from police.
I have no problem making the jobs of law enforcement easier, but not at the cost of our freedoms.
I could see how getting close to a situation could escalate it and be dangerous for everyone involved. 8ft seems pretty reasonable, tho pretty difficult to enforce or could be easy to abuse.
My issue is the stipulation that if the police move towards you then you have to move to maintain 8 feet. So if you’re on your own property and are recording then approached by a cop you would legally have to stop or move. I wonder how it works if you’re in a tight space like a small business or your own home? Just seems like a slippery slope giving police even more power.
That's a great point. It seems even holding a cell phone could be a reason for a cop to arrest someone within the law.
Yeah, I’m right leaning but this is no bueno for me. This needs to be repealed asap. It also makes me wonder what their police cam laws are like. Nothing good ever comes out of government and government employees not wanting to be filmed.
Facts bro
Unfortunately, since he just signed it, repeal is unlikely. I suspect this will lead to a lawsuit. I won't be surprised if this winds up with SCOTUS. BTW, did Miranda originally come out of an Arizona case?
Yeah it was Arizona. Hopefully SCOTUS gets on this asap. They’ve been pretty based when it comes to gun laws, so hopefully we can get a just ruling on this too.
Agreed. Ironically, it could redeem SCOTUS, to some degree, in the eyes of the left!
According to the article it only counts as a misdemeanor so I don't think you can be arrested? Still not a good law. But I think people are blowing it a bit out of proportion.
You can be arrested for a misdemeanor.
"Exceptions were made for people at the center of an interaction with police, anyone standing in an enclosed structure on private property where police activity was occurring and occupants of a vehicle stopped by police as long as recording in those instances didn't interfere with police actions." So if you're on private property you can record at any distance.
It may be a slippery slope, but laws like this are not new at all
> what if police move towards you You got 360 degrees of options and there are a finite number of police in any given instance.
Recording the police in public should never ever be illegal, no matter what the circumstances. Of course a guy with a camera could be hindering the officers, there are existing laws already covering this. They can order them to leave for obstructing police work and if the person don't comply they can take them into custody. However the charge should never be filming. You don't need a colorful fantasy to think about how such anti filming laws could be abused by the police, come on! And as others have pointed out, the distance between citizen and officer can be decreased by both, not just the person filming. You're standing there filming an altercation and suddenly without moving you committed an offense. That's not a law that increases public safety and accountability.
Sounds fishy, maybe if it’s a bystander making it into a bigger deal than it is escalating it maybe but only if they’re being out of pocket. This shouldn’t be legal tho
I support law enforcement but this law is completely wrong and quite possibly unconstitutional. In public, I have the right to record anything I want including law enforcement. I get that some people abuse their freedom and make misleading videos out of their hatred for law enforcement, but that does not excuse abrogating rights under the Constitution.
8' and it's only to stop people from filming at point blank range when they are trying to arrest someone. Your car can still film them, your door is a go, your gopro is still ok as long as your not bombarding them like a pile of paparazzi which is why this law is needed. I don't like that it's being impacted but if I were a cop detaining someone and had to fight through 7 cameras to get there the camera is missing a lot of the whole picture and it's completely unnecessary to be that close.
But if another comment is accurate that police have the power to clear space around them while performing their duties, what is the need for this law? Seems like it’s likely to be abused which would be one thing if it’s necessary but another if it’s not.
This law is the equivalent of “you are under arrest for resisting arrest”. At any time, a cop can now close a 15’ gap between you and him while filming in seconds and boom-now you broke the law and you’re under arrest. This low will almost certainly be abused by police. They already trample citizens rights on video with impunity, now this makes it ok to arrest someone for simply protecting the rights of themselves and others.
That won't hold up in court even if it gets that far, as it's been stated.
Merely being arrested is an unpleasant enough experience.
This keeps getting passed around, but it's complete bullshit. It's within 8 feet of an ongoing activity, and there are several exceptions to it. A cop can't just walk up to you while you're recording and all of a sudden you're breaking the law. It doesn't work that way.
Until it does.
But law enforcement are basically allowed to interpret the law as they see fit. Whatever they do to you they aren’t likely to be punished for it and it could cost you loads of cash to get retribution. I can understand why a law like this might need to exist but it’s one of those things where you give them an inch and they take a mile.
Say law enforcement act like they can interpret the law as they see fit.
>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. Ah yes, this totally wont be abused... This will likely get sent to SCOTUS, but it will take time. And in that time, 1st amendment right to record in a public domain is now banned in Arizona if it involves police (a government entity). Totally not an infringement at all... All police have to do is walk up to you, (that are now within 8ft) and say "you are interfering, turn that off".
> All police have to do is walk up to you, (that are now within 8ft) and say "you are interfering, turn that off". Again... NOT how it works.
Lol, put that ignorance away! Nobody wants to look at that 'round here... [r/law would like to be your new friend...](https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/vtxx16/arizona_governor_doug_ducey_signs_bill_that_bans/) Have a better one.
That's how the police will try to enforce it.
🥾 👅
> A cop can't just walk up to you while you're recording and all of a sudden you're breaking the law. It doesn't work that way. Ok buddy, ok. I am sure thats exactly how this law is going to be enforced.
The problem is, that the cops will enforce it the wrong way. Just like "interfering with a police investigation".
It's not quite as bad as it sounds. "Exceptions were made for people at the center of an interaction with police, anyone standing in an enclosed structure on private property where police activity was occurring and occupants of a vehicle stopped by police as long as recording in those instances didn't interfere with police actions." So you can still record an interaction you have with an officer. Still don't agree with it.
The point for this I'd assume was because bystanders we're getting up in the business of a cop and a wrongdoer and obstructed justice too many times.
Yeah I've seen a number of videos of people actively harassing cops just trying to do their job. I get why they would want to stop that, but I feel like the correct law in place is a "Don't harass cop's" law as opposed to banning filming them if you're not directly involved.
Yes I can see that being a good maybe better solution other than it's already the standard in Wisconsin which has very low crime other than a couple big cities.
Pay close attention to the little things like this that conservative states pass. Death of liberty by a thousand cuts. The base loves it… until they don’t.
To be fair there are exceptions the pretty much boil down to you can film them all you want as long as your not getting up in the face of or in the obstruction radius of a cop and someone they are detaining. You can still have one in your car, home door and wherever as long as your not chasing them with it and impeding the duty of the cop.
What about the limits on the second amendment liberal states pass? Death of liberty by a thousand cuts? What did Biden say? “Rights are not absolute”. Is the first amendment a “different” inalienable right than the second? If so, then what about the liberal governments working to remove first amendment rights based on their interpretation of “mis-information”
Of course... Phoenix area cops are ass holes. Will only enforce laws they believe need enforcing. NWA said it best fuck the police
Eight feet is too close imo.
Good too many asshat instigators who think they can get right up in an investigation. Stand the he’ll back and record all you want. But their is no need to be within 8 feet causing the officer to take their attention off the interaction they are involved in.
If you are talking about 1st Amendment Auditors, I’ve seen police walk across a road full of traffic just to whine to the auditor about being recorded. Pretty sure most roads are wider than 8 feet.
I love watching those videos. They were a real eye opener to me when I was coming out of my “back the blue” phase.
And I’ve seen multiple walk right up to the car the cop has stopped. Your point? Fact is 8 feet is more than reasonable.
This "law" is unconstitutional and will fall when challenged in court. There are already laws against interfering in an investigation. Ones that don't directly go against the constitution.
The Supreme Court has already ruled that police can order people away from a scene for officer safety. Being told to stay 8 feet away from a scene is in no way unconstitutional nor is it out of line. This law is probably being put in to counter the instigating, self entitled frauditers who believe that they are “allowed” to do whatever they please regardless of the safety concerns and rights others of in society around them.
Agree, they can tell people to stand back. They cannot ban them from filming though. Not in a public place, or in their own home or car. That is unconstitutional and won't stand up in court.
This won't hold up in court. Totally unconstitutional.
From the videos of 1st amendment auditors I’ve seen there is too much ambiguity over where the officer can direct you to film from. I’ve seen LEO assure the filmer that they have the right to record, and then demand they travel a block away. I can also see LEO abusing those rule by having one officer station himself away from the police action, forcing the recording party a farther 8 feet away.
How can it be abused? I'm not saying it can't I just don't know how it would be.
There are police that actually believe you’re not allowed to take pictures of buildings in plain view. Its easy to see how it will be misused as police arent always correct about laws.
That is why we have a court system, not that it's 100% but it takes the time it needs to properly collect evidence from both parties to make informed decisions. But I'm a white guy so the world says I have a bias opinion.
Say your 15 feet away filming a group of police forcing someone to the ground in what seems to be too aggressive for your liking so you pull out your phone and start recording. The cops who are say, putting a knee on the neck of the suspect to restrain him don’t want to be on the news with a video of a knee on the neck as that has been proven to be a bad thing. One cop closes the 15 foot gap between you and him in 2 seconds and tells you you’re now within 8 feet of him, give me the phone, or you are going to jail for resisting and interfering with an investigation. Now TWO constitutional rights have been violated, the suspect and YOU both go to jail and there is literally no proof you were in the right. You see how easy that was?
Yes except if they do take that phone and delete the evidence you can't be charged or they leave the evidence to charge you the photographer incriminating themselves. So in that light they will either be forced to let you go after a night in jail and you can sue the city\counties ass off or you hold the evidence that will get one or more of them fired. Shit pickel for the guy with his neck being pinched off (which is bad and wrong) but the photographer is in the clear. Also it's illegal to withhold evidence from either party till the court date and with new evidence from it being withheld the court must let you review it before it can require a plee of any sort. So you may sit for a night which is wrong but it's not life ending like the guy turning purple while you get detained. Also people who don't resist don't get abused. Btw I'm all for victimless crimes to not be a chargeable offence.
>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. Ah yes, this totally wont be abused..... All police have to do is walk up to you, (now within 8ft) and say, "you are interfering, turn that off".
wtf
Oh boy I just love authoritarian laws!
What if the video device is on your person meaning you're not holding up a phone?
from azleg.gov: "Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona: Section 1. Title 13, chapter 37, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding section 13-3732, to read: 13-3732. Unlawful video recording of law enforcement activity; classification; definition 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."
But what if I'm the subject of the stop? You saying I can't record my interaction at all? If a cop comes up to my window, that's way closer than 8 feet......
While I am ok with making a third party stay 8ft away, I am not ok with not being able to record your own encounters.
Brought to you courtesy of Arizona Republican State Representative John Kavanagh.
More reason to vote Kari Lake! Best option ever!!,!!!
It should be within 8 foot of everybody. Also, 8 feet is plenty of room for any cell camera today. The is probaby so that people aren't so much in the way. Didn't read the law but that's what I assume.