Hacker News Reader

Comment by vkou | Hacker News Reader

What is going to happen, of course, is that you start filming from 50 feet away, and then one of the officers will walk over to you, and tell you to stop filming. Which happens all the time already, but thanks to this, will turn it from a request, into a legal requirement.

The purpose of this law is to protect the police state.

View on HN

You didn’t read the law but seem pretty sure of your take.

This was discussed prior - a police officer standing next to you isn’t included in the defined police activity.

>This was discussed prior - a police officer standing next to you isn’t included in the defined police activity.

Unless they are enforcing the law. Which they will be, because they will be enforcing this law.

If they are enforcing a law against you, the 8 feet doesn’t apply., you are free to record.

Yikes. Like 90% of the comments on this throw out wild scenarios that clearly don’t apply if you read the law which is less than one page.

How can this law ever be enforced if an attempt to enforce it automatically makes any offender an exception to the law?

That’s not how it works.

You could illegally film someone else’s arrest closer than 8ft.

When the cops arrests you (unlikely it’s a misdemeanor) you’re free to film your own interaction.

Because some of us live in the world of reality, were cops only tangentially know the laws, unfairly enforce the laws, and this law will give the police the perception that any recording with in 8 feet of them is illegal and will be enforced as such even if not technically true

The law will be abused by the cops on the ground, this is 100% a sure thing going to happen, it will be used to ruin someone life. I mean that legitimately because unlike popular opinion of internet commenters on the law, a simple arrest can have life alter consequences including job loss, you could end able on any number of mug shot sites that could impact your ability to be hired get rental property, all kinds of things.

Let alone if you are convicted under this law, or if they try to arrest you can you reflexively pull your arm away... bam now your a felon resisting arrest...

So keep "reading the one page law" and if you think it is no issue I would encourage you to go record on some police at 8.1 feet way, do that enough I am sure you will have a different opinion in just a few interactions

>Yikes. Like 90% of the comments on this throw out wild scenarios that clearly don’t apply if you read the law which is less than one page.

Your certainty is completely unwarranted.

Here is a lawyer from Arizona talking about it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Id3RJ3tCuM

It's a short bill, but it has complex implications, especially considering that it's somewhat self-referential (law about law enforcement). It's going to be a mess in practice.

A police officer "enforcing the law" is covered as law enforcement activity. That seems open to (mis)interpretation.

Although if you then get arrested, you'd fall under the exception for persons subject to police contact. So it all works out in the end!

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

If you record and they start questioning you, you are exempt from 8 ft.

If they try to arrest you, you are exempt from 8 ft.

If they claim you are emotionally unstable, you are exempt from 8 ft.

If you are just a bystander, you need to stay 8 ft away from the police activity.

- Police begin questioning a suspect.

- You begin recording from 8 ft away.

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

- You're now breaking the law.

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

What do you think will happen to you?

What do you think will happen to the officer when we discover that his legal interpretation is incorrect?

The police don't actually need to know the law they are enforcing. And it's no sweat off their backs when they are wrong about the details.

> Read the law.

I did, or at least tried to. That's why I put "enforcing the law" in quotes.

Maybe I read the wrong law? In https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/laws/0376.pdf, the definition of "law enforcement activity" includes this, from section E(2):

> CONDUCTING AN ARREST, ISSUING A SUMMONS OR ENFORCING THE LAW

My point is that "enforcing the law" seems like a very broad umbrella. Prior to this law being written, I think I'd be on OK ground if I was filming an arrest from 10 feet away and an unrelated police officer came up to me and told me to stop.

Now, it's less clear to me. The officer who comes up and tells me to stop clearly thinks he is enforcing the law. Am I now breaking the law if I don't stop recording?

Then this law is utterly useless, because police could always make someone standing over their shoulder move away. Why did the legislature pass it?

Why did one of the officers at the George Floyd killing walk over to the camera man, and tell him to stop filming? If he has this law behind him, he wouldn't have covered for the murder by also interpreting it in a self-serving manner?

If you're in that situation, what exactly do you think you're going to win by getting into a legal debate with a cop?

The real yikes here is the presumption that the police will behave legally, honorably, and with the public's interests in mind. They don't. It's not in their culture to do it, it's not in our culture to enforce that they do.

The point is that Laws have interpretations. This law is unnecessary and not required. Police already can arrest you for interfering. This law is an attempt to stop citizens from recording the police.

Before this law: I as a citizen can record a police activity reasonably from anywhere. Even up close as long as I am not interfering for which I can already get arrested

After this law: I as a citizen am never sure if it is a good idea to record because the new law can have many interpretations. Do I want to risk filming and getting approached by a Bad Cop on a Power trip who will tell me it is illegal to record ?

> Do I want to risk filming and getting approached by a Bad Cop on a Power trip who will tell me it is illegal to record ?

That was already the case. If you assume bad intent, this law changes nothing. If you assume good intent, this law is codifying reasonable behavior.

What if I'm filming from 8 feet away with good intent and a cop who is doing naughty things walks towards me so they have a legal basis to keep me from filming? And to confiscate what I've already filmed?

I disagree. Now the Bad Cops have a reason to try and intimidate you further. It is a pointless Law in my opinion but we can agree to disagree.

Maybe, maybe not, and that is the problem. There is a phrase "the process is the punishment". So they arrest you, and you drag you through the system, you hire a lawyer, lose days at work, etc... You're out several thousand dollars, exhausted, and they eventually just drop the charges without another word, maybe the officer gets a little extra overtime even.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com