What exactly is wrong with this? Previously, couldn't cops just claim you were interfering regardless of distance or number of warnings?
Just read up on who the bill sponsor is and you will understand his intent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kavanagh_(Arizona_politic...
The video footage. Image analysis along with metadata is sufficient to determine the viewpoint.
> Does it really matter, you are already going to jail and your phone was unfortunately damaged in the arrest which you were also resisting.
5G, and perhaps within a few years the new civilian internet satellites, will evolve this situation. Constantly uploading/syncing video and images to secure remote storage is something war journalists have long sought. By the time someone with a gun threatens you to delete things you can go through the theatre of complying, or they can even destroy your device, but it's too late for them.
It doesn't matter what might end up happening later, the upfront cost of recording is now very real and there is a chance to get starved out of money to even try to take such an item to court.
The tech might be undeniable, but it doesn't matter if there is a buffer in front of the system that would accept such tech as evidence, and said buffer could delay your chance to succeed by months if not years.
It doesn't really matter how good the tech is if the system where it would help can stall out the situation beyond your means to live.
As a Brit I give the police and legal system much more leeway and benefit of the doubt, they've got a job to do and mostly do their best. Also, I believe they should never shy from accountability, hence being filmed by the public, as the police often do to citizens, is an inescapable part of the job today. And if that gets a bit too "in your face" then maybe it's time to look for a job that suits you better.
Nonetheless, the police can no longer lie with impunity against sophisticated technical evidence. We are all changed by technology and possible forensic evidence we never thought possible, and that can keep people more honest.
The police aren't always the sharpest knife in the drawer when it comes to technology. Here in the UK, Wayne Couzens, the policeman who raped and killed Sarah Everard, was caught by technical carelessness that you'd have thought he knew better about.
Also another fun fact is cops in the US don't actually have to know the law they can just claim they thought they were enforcing the law. So they can do pretty much anything up to a pretty arbitrary line of egregiousness and just shrug if told they were wrong and walk away career unscathed.
What's wrong is this - I'm filming some police brutality from the legally mandated 8 feet away. Then a cop moves 1 foot closer to me. Ooops, look like my camera/phone is confiscated and I'm under arrest.
Why don’t you try it out and see how well that works out for you?
Very, very few people of privilege know what having an adversarial state is truly like.
It's a pretty obvious way to criminalize citizens documenting police. The police already had the law on their side to deal with people actually interfering in their duties. Now merely documenting them in a way they determine is unsafe is a crime.
>Previously, couldn't cops just claim you were interfering regardless of distance or number of warnings?
They still can.
They can still do that, too. Interfering is still illegal no matter what you're doing or where you are when you do it. Simply filming is protected by the first amendment, so unless you were doing something else you had a defense to say you weren't interfering. Now that defense is gone. It doesn't matter whether you're actually interfering or not, now you can be arrested and charged for simply filming.
What if you have to get out of your car, but leave your camera running and the cop decides to drag you down and put a knee on your neck within 8 feet?
And it's only a misdemeanor after the police already warned you and you continue to take video from closer than 8ft.
No more could police argue interference because there’s an explicit definition now of what is too close.
You can still for example "interfere" and be more than 8 feet away and pointing to this law won't help you.
https://www.law.uh.edu/faculty/adjunct/dstevenson/2018Spring...
This was already constitutionally protected. And this new law is likely going to be challenged on its constitutionality.