Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Crime Cellphones

Arizona Makes It Illegal For Bystanders To Record Cops At Close Range (arstechnica.com) 154

Posted by BeauHD from the recording-rights dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Arizona passed a law making it harder to record police by limiting how close bystanders can be while recording specified law enforcement activity. [...] 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. Additionally, anyone recording activity from an enclosed structure on private property still has a right to record police within 8 feet -- unless law enforcement "determines that the person is interfering" or "it is not safe" for them to be in the area. That caveat potentially gives police a lot of discretion over who can record and when.

Kavanagh said he decided to push for this change in Arizona law after some Tucson officers complained that bystanders sometimes stood a foot or two behind them while recording arrests. The state representative also told USA Today that his decision to set the minimum distance at 8 feet "is based upon 8 feet being established by the US Supreme Court as being a reasonable distance as they applied it to people entering and leaving abortion clinics when faced with protesters." Responding to critics who think citizens should be able to get closer to law enforcement activity, Kavanagh said, "The argument that filming from 8 feet away does not allow for a proper view of the scene is ridiculous." He cited impactful police brutality recordings that were recorded from further distances, including Rodney King (100 feet) and Freddie Gray ("clearly 8 to 10 feet away"). In 2017, a federal appeals court ruled that the First Amendment protects individuals' right to film police officers performing their official duties.

The ACLU says this law is a "chilling" use of the "public's most effective tool against police wrongdoing in violation of our First Amendment rights." ACLU staff attorney K.M. Bell added: "By limiting our ability to record police interactions, this law will undoubtedly make it even more difficult to hold police officers accountable for misconduct."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Arizona Makes It Illegal For Bystanders To Record Cops At Close Range More

Arizona Makes It Illegal For Bystanders To Record Cops At Close Range

Comments Filter:

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday July 08, 2022 @05:15PM (#62685968)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • There is a compelling reason for this law, but will effect details that could show clear police misconduct. I know cases where bystanders prevent legitimate activity.

      For fairness, if it was intended to prevent interference required all bystanders to be 8 feet away. It should have also included a bounty of $5,000 to anyone supplying video of clear police misconduct.

      • Yes that is what is so interesting in this case: it is acceptable to be within 8 feet of police activity, but ONLY if you are not filming. This will not pass muster with any Supreme Court except the current one.

    • If your phone can't record greater than 8 feet, you really should stop using a potato.

      Yep. 8 feet is fuck all.

      This law seems entirely reasonable to me. Cops don't need a bunch of people sticking phones in their faces and shouting "it's my right!" while they're working.

    • I wish I had MOD points to bump you +1

  • Frasier vs Evans (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Agent Fletcher ( 624427 ) on Friday July 08, 2022 @05:27PM (#62686014)
    In 2021 the Supreme Court refused to hear a case that would give or deny rights for citizens to record police under the first amendment. This is an attempt to get it the issue in front of a court that has the best chance to rule in favor of police to limit recording rights.

  • Very Reasonable (Score:5, Insightful)

    by GotNoRice ( 7207988 ) on Friday July 08, 2022 @05:34PM (#62686040)
    8 feet seems very reasonable. While many will no doubt jump to the conclusion that this equates to censorship, people have to take into account the reality of countless idiots sticking their phones in cops faces during extremely delicate and serious situations.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by spire3661 ( 1038968 )
      You jsut dont get it. This will be used to arrest innocent people. The police will purposefully move in to range and then BAM!, arrested.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Jhon ( 241832 )

        Seeing as the person arrested would likely have video of that officer(s) "purposefully move in to range", then warn, then arrest with zero time for the "innocent people" to move...

        Yeah, even as an edge case, I'm not buying your scenario.

      • 100% true. The officer doing the stop will continue to do his job, whilst his partner will encroach on the parties filming. Oops, closer than 8' now. Move back. Officer keeps walking towards you. Move back. Move back... now you're 100' from where the officer doing the stop is breaking the law or stomping on someone's rights and the camera is out of range. Now party filming is arrested, phone / camera seized and impounded for a year while you fight to get it back. Try and prove your innocence witho

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by Xenx ( 2211586 )
          The law does specify 8 feet from the law enforcement activity, and not the officers. Technically, at that point the officer telling you to move back is not part of the activity you're filming. Now, that doesn't mean they wouldn't do it anyway... but then, they pull crap like this already.
      • Do the recording while holding a ten-foot pole.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by ravenshrike ( 808508 )

        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.

        A cop standing around is not a law enforcement activity, and a cop moving towards someone more than 8 feet away would be enforcing the law, and thus subject to the person subject to a law enforcement activity codici

      • They canâ(TM)t according to this law. They can move close to you, then they have to ask you to move and wait for you to move.

    • I agree. I was initially appalled until I saw the definition of "close range" as 8 feet.

      I'm having a hard time figuring out why one would conceivably want to get closer than 8 feet to a cop while they're working. Much closer than that and you're not going to clearly capture the action at hand anyhow.

      It feels like the ACLU is using the same tactics here as the NRA / gun lobby when it comes to common-sense gun-related laws, like background checks, waiting periods, etc. It's the old "camel's nose under the

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by caseih ( 160668 )

        How about any traffic stop? the passenger or driver in the car will be within that distance and thus unable to record police actions such as dragging someone bodily out of the car.

        • Re:Very Reasonable (Score:5, Informative)

          by Xenographic ( 557057 ) on Friday July 08, 2022 @06:40PM (#62686280) Journal

          > How about any traffic stop? the passenger or driver in the car will be within that distance and thus unable to record police actions such as dragging someone bodily out of the car.

          I mean, you could just read the law linked in the summary [azleg.gov] to find out:

          "NOTWITHSTANDING SUBSECTION A OF THIS SECTION, A PERSON WHO IS21
          THE SUBJECT OF POLICE CONTACT MAY RECORD THE ENCOUNTER IF THE PERSON IS22
          NOT INTERFERING WITH LAWFUL POLICE ACTIONS, INCLUDING SEARCHING,23
          HANDCUFFING OR ADMINISTERING A FIELD SOBRIETY TEST. THE OCCUPANTS OF A24
          VEHICLE THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF A POLICE STOP MAY RECORD THE ENCOUNTER IF25
          THE OCCUPANTS ARE NOT INTERFERING WITH LAWFUL POLICE ACTIONS."

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by tsqr ( 808554 )

          I know most Slashdotters don't RTFA, but for God's sake, this is in the effing summary: 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

        • They will be allowed to record at any distance if in the same vehicle as the person being arrested/assaulted by the police. Maybe that gets watered down in the future.

        • According to the article, if the police officer puts his face right in your face, then you are involved and not a bystander, and you are allowed to put your iPhone right between your faces and start filming. Same if they stop your car and stick their head through the window, you are allowed to film.

      • Re:Very Reasonable (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Darinbob ( 1142669 ) on Friday July 08, 2022 @06:51PM (#62686310)

        Because the police move to block your view. Then you move to get a better view, hold the phone down close to the ground to get past the obstruction, shuffle some more, then pretty soon the police, who ALREADY assume all bystanders are scum, are pissed off at you, and pissed off that they can't hit you because you're recording, and in general overall pissed off because that recording is cramping their style.

        This is the sort of thing that seems common sense, because you could just say "don't interfere" and it *should* cover all sorts of situations. Except that the police actually are actively trying to block recordings anyway they can.

        Mostly how someone feels about this comes down to if someone thinks police should have more or less accountability.

      • The law appears quite reasonable when you observe the exact wording of the law:

        If bystanders move closer after police have warned them to back off

        So long as you are stationary there is no problem. This only applies to people who approach within 8 feet after being told to back off. So a police officer can not approach an individual and claim they are in violation of the law - because that individual is not approaching the officer. The individual is just limited in that they can not approach the police officer within the 8 foot boundary.

      • like background checks, waiting periods,

        NRA is against universal bg checks. Any waiting period past the successful bg check is punitive, not functional.

    • You're 12 feet away from a cop, recording him. The cop notices you and starts walking towards you, which is legal because there's no law against walking towards someone. The cop is now within 8 feet and demands you stop recording, because you're now breaking the law. You say "what? But I--" and you're now resisting a lawful order and can be arrested.

      • Reading comprehension is a wonderful thing. Per the law in question, Subsection E states that enforcing the law is a law enforcement activity, and the law clearly spells out that those subject to the law enforcement activity are not subject to the 8 ft restriction.

      • Your example is blatantly erroneous. Did you read the law's text?

        Christ, /. is full of Defund The Police folks tonight.

  • Another example of what is wrong... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by superdave80 ( 1226592 ) on Friday July 08, 2022 @05:36PM (#62686048)
    ...with political discourse in this country. This law is a very reasonable compromise on recording police (8 ft, they have to give you a warning to get back first, exception for the person the police are interacting with, etc.). Then the ACLU has to scream bloody murder at the 'chilling' (i.e., not really impeding anybody from filming) effect of this law.

  • This all sounds OK ... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Alain Williams ( 2972 ) <addw@phcomp.co.uk> on Friday July 08, 2022 @05:41PM (#62686064) Homepage

    until the cop decides that he does not want you to record what he is doing; so he approaches you and then arrests you for filming him at less than 8 foot.

    • until the cop decides that he does not want you to record what he is doing; so he approaches you and then arrests you for filming him at less than 8 foot.

      I suspect, a reasonable court would throw out such an arrest as the law sates "enforcement action" and the officer is not engaged in one.

    • That’s like arresting someone for resisting arrest: it doesn’t hold up. If you approach them like that you make them a participant in the action, at which point the 8 foot rule no longer applies.

    • > until the cop decides that he does not want you to record what he is doing; so he approaches you and then arrests you for filming him at less than 8 foot.

      If the cop wants to just arrest you because you can beat the rap but not the ride, they don't need this law to do that, they can just mumble something about disorderly conduct and cuff you.

      With this law, you'll either have the recording to prove that they did wrong, or the cops will have to explain why there's no recording when they arrested you for m

    • until the cop decides that he does not want you to record what he is doing; so he approaches you and then arrests you for filming him at less than 8 foot.

      Except for the fact that by definition you will be filming that and so have all the evidence you need to show that the police approached you and not the other way around...and the evidence can't get "lost" either since then there will be no evidence that you were filming and so no evidence that you were breaking this law.

    • You are not allowed to move closer than 8 feet and film. It says that explicitly: You are not allowed to move closer. If the cop moves towards you, you are not moving, you are allowed to film.

      If we are 100 feet apart, I start filming, and we both move towards each other, then at eight feet I have to stop moving or stop filming. If I stop moving but the cop doesnâ(TM)t then I can film him from two feet.

  • Is this really ABOUT recording? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sloppy ( 14984 ) on Friday July 08, 2022 @05:43PM (#62686070) Homepage Journal

    If you go by the stated reason for this law, it sounds like they don't want bystanders near the cops, period, whether they're recording or not. And amazingly, that's even believable.

    So why is recording even part of the law? Just make witnesses back off, regardless of whether they're using cameras and mics, or using old-school human senses and brains.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Brain-Fu ( 1274756 )

      Maybe it is so people can't use "I am engaging in my legal right to record officers performing their duties in public" as an excuse to totally interfere with what the cop is trying to do.

      I am not in a position to know, I am just speculating. The 8 feet given here seems reasonable to me. I think the ACLU is over-reacting (but of course they must, because stirring up fear and outrage is how they keep the donation money flowing into their coffers).

    • They can require longer distances because you might have a gun or knife. With a camera in hand, you are less danger, so you can actually move closer.

  • 8 feet is close (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hdyoung ( 5182939 ) on Friday July 08, 2022 @05:45PM (#62686080)
    I’m 110% for allowing members of the public to record cops freely and at every opportunity, because having the legal right to shoot unarmed citizens needs to come with some damn stringent oversight. But 8 is really, really, REALLY close to the action. With today’s cameras, you can probably make out the stitches on the cops shirt. Plenty close to record whats going on. That law’s not trying to deter cop recording. That would require 20-30 feet at least. That’s a law that wants the public to stay more than 8 feet away from a couple of cops that are actively wrestling with a suspect, they’re a bit worried for their health and safety because every hallucinating schizophrenic in this country is officially encouraged to carry at least 2 guns, and the cops are deciding if they need to a) draw a taser or b) kill the suspect.

    I’m no fan of Arizona’s political stances (Arpaio is an unnecessarily cruel unrepentent bastard) but an 8 foot limit actually sounds pretty reasonable to me. Chauvin would still have gotten his just dessert with this law in place.

    • Re:8 feet is close (Score:5, Insightful)

      by AppXprt ( 6146386 ) on Friday July 08, 2022 @06:00PM (#62686138)
      Yea 8 feet seem reasonable to me because most people record are 10-15 feet. Here is the problem though. I've saw a record incident recently on youtube where the officer was illegally at a residence without a warrant and barely close enough to a door for it not to be able to close. This is illegal and literally home invasion. When the home owner tried to close their door because the officer didn't have a warrant, it BARELY touches the officer so the homeowner got arrested for assaulting an officer. They will very LITERALLY walk up to ANYONE recording them and immediately arrest them for recording them at close range. Watch and See. I promise you it will happen. How quick can you stop recording if an officer is rapidly approaching you? How will they be able to determine how close the officer was when he approached you and you stopped recording? Was it 8 Feet? You're detained until proven otherwise. You see how muddy this gets real quick?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by vanyel ( 28049 )

        All you have to do is turn the phone so it's not recording the officer when they get close; if you're a bystander and closer than 8 ft and I was the cop, I'd probably charge you with interfering anyway as you're definitely getting in the way.

        • An officer can delete the video by threatening arrest and then just claim you were 8 feet away so it gave them the right to delete it even if you were 20 feet away. Police officers are human and humans generally can't be trusted. That's what they believe about civilians, so why shouldn't we believe that about them? Because they tell us not to?

          • An officer can delete the video by threatening arrest and then just claim you were 8 feet away so it gave them the right to delete it even if you were 20 feet away.

            Point the text in law that says an officer has the right to delete video (crime evidence) from your phone.

            • The video would be proof you were too close, so the cop deleting the video would be totally unreasonable. And the whole law is not about filming, but distance from you to cop, so there is no reason why they should be allowed to destroy the video.

    • Arpaio has been gone for 6 years.

  • As written this may make doorbell type cameras at the front door illegal under some circumstances. All forbidding of recording at one's own home should be exempted.

  • The police will abuse this law (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Macdude ( 23507 ) on Friday July 08, 2022 @05:57PM (#62686120)

    So say you're standing 10 feet away form a cop filming, the cop will walk towards you three feet and then arrest you.

    This law comes about because the police don't like their actions being recorded, too many of them (in their opinion) are getting in trouble for doing standard cop things: things like killing innocent people, arresting innocent people, battering innocent people, etc.

    • If a cop walks towards you so that they have “cause” to arrest you for filming too close, they would be making you a participant in the police action, at which point the law no longer applies to you. They can’t have it both ways, just like they can’t (legally) arrest you for nothing more than resisting arrest.

      • Who will the courts believe? You think they'll let you use your "illegal" video evidence? Despite legal basis to do so, I suspect some cops will physically destroy your phone.

  • From the bill "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,"

    Say a cop is kneeling on a guy's neck for nine minutes, and another cop is standing 8 feet from the killer cop, telling people to back up. The person with the cellphone is now 15 feet from the killer cop yet is in violation of the law because the other cop is clearly involved in law enforcement activity (that is, preventing bystanders

  • 8 feet? This is actually good (Score:5, Funny)

    by fabioalcor ( 1663783 ) on Friday July 08, 2022 @06:18PM (#62686204)

    I was sick of those shaky, too close, out of focus policial videos.
    Now they should pass a law enforcing horizontal filming.

  • Since no one reads beyond the summary (Score:4, Informative)

    by LeeLynx ( 6219816 ) on Friday July 08, 2022 @06:33PM (#62686258)
    This is what the law defines as "law enforcement activity":

    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

    Emphasis definitely mine. "Enforcing the law" is broad enough to encompass officers just maintaining the scene around the other activity. Enough officers on a scene could stretch that 8' out as far as they have warm bodies to cover, and anyone making a reasonable effort to get a good camera view of what is going on in the middle is now subject to arrest. The justification given by the legislator who proposed this bill is laughable, that it is for the safety of officers - it doesn't prohibit being within 8' of the officers, just filming while you're there. The only "threat" it addresses is the prying eyes of the public observing them.

  • bullshit! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by shentino ( 1139071 ) <shentino@gmail.com> on Friday July 08, 2022 @06:37PM (#62686268)

    If it's really about safety for the officer then WHY THE LIVING FUCK SHOULD IT MATTER WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE BEING RECORDED?!?!

    The cops should not give ONE FUCKING SHIT if they're being recorded or not.

    If an eyewitness can see it it's already public anyway so the police have no business caring about it on privacy grounds.

    8 feet means 8 feet, not "8 feet but only if you have a live smartphone otherwise get as close as you dare"

  • This can be abused, just like all laws, and we need a good judiciary to sort this out. At the same time, cops may obviously need to move quickly or operate various devices that may harm bystanders at close range while doing their legitimate job. In many states, there are buffer zone laws that require pro-life protesters to keep up to 100 feet distance from women entering clinics that provide abortions. There is always a balance between "free speech" and "not right into my face".

    • This law does *not* prohibit people from getting close, it just prohibits them from filming when they do. It's also broad enough that police at a scene could keep cameras far, far more than 8 feet away from whatever it is they don't want filmed or heard. The law says what it says, the judiciary does not generally get to just rewrite it to its liking.

  • Use zoom if you want to get closer (Score:3)

    by ayesnymous ( 3665205 ) on Saturday July 09, 2022 @01:06AM (#62686932)
    Use zoom if you want to get closer.
  • Say I Film a cop from five feet. He tells me to move away. I move away and film him from eight feet, no complaints. Or I insist on filming from five feet and can be charged. Is that whatâ(TM)s supposed to happen?

    Reading this it seems they have to tell you that you are too close and you have to refuse to move before they can do anything. Did anyone take videos of Chavez from closer than eight feet? (No idea, that's why I ask).
  • 8' is not even a car's length away. Still too close to any situation. 15-20' and keep your mouth shut - don't talk shit @ cops, then I wouldn't blame them for coming after you.

  • If the driver was stopped, can passengers record interaction between cops and the driver? That's usually less than 8 feet.

Slashdot Top Deals

After a number of decimal places, nobody gives a damn.

Close