This one was interesting. Many were critics of the law.
Cop watchers in AZ were basically going to test it and the clarity on distance saw a lot of positive comments.
Cop watchers in AZ were basically going to test it and the clarity on distance saw a lot of positive comments.
It didn't create a "safe to film" zone. Police could still argue you are obstructing their work at 9 feet. Or just move one of the officers to within the 8 foot range where you're automatically committing an offense regardless of whether your behaviour is actually interfering with their work.
Some of the cop watchers I saw were basically using the distance measure to ward off calls to retreat, saying "soon, it is 8 feet"
That wouldn't work - it only covered cops who were "actively involved". Getting your partner to move towards someone with a camera would mean they were no longer covered by that. Otherwise they could just station cops on 16ft grid and prevent any filming for 100s of ft.
(Not that I am defending the law - it was clearly a spiteful protest at cop oversight.)
If only there was footage to corroborate the partner's statement on the matter.
Quip aside, I can think of a half dozen ways off the top of my head for a partner to get in the way while remaining actively involved.
It's ok for the balance to tip in favor of the people once in a while.
Sure but none of them are "walk towards the camera and the magic circle goes with them", right? Which is what a lot of people think is the "GOTCHA!" this law gives the cops.
Unfortunately, the nature of the job attracts those people sometimes.
I'm not trying to do the police as a career a disservice (which in general is a noble one, IMO), but they shown time and time again that they have plenty of bullies and bad apples (universally, not in any given place, but some places are worse).
Edit: some other comments illustrate this better
It’s clearly the intent of the law, and the idea that it won’t be used for such is impossible to reach without motivated reasoning.
I just happened to have seen this footage from a few different angles shortly before replying to this comment.
I'm certainly not saying all police officers are bad actors - what I am saying is that there will always be bad actors. That is precisely why we have checks and balances for those with authority. It's pretty clear thanks to qualified immunity that some police in the US feel pretty, well, immune. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. That and ending qualified immunity.
[1] https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-09-09/a-teen-f...
Here's the one page law https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/HB2319S.pdf
edit even easier, if this law was enacted, one officer could say to another "make sure those people filming are eight feet away." Then, to enforce the law they would need to approach the person filming to measure the distance but as they are engaged in enforcing the law that person needs to be eight feet away. Simple magic circle gotcha.
It specifically quotes "law enforcement activity" as "QUESTIONING A SUSPICIOUS PERSON", "CONDUCTING AN ARREST, ISSUING A SUMMONS OR ENFORCING THE LAW", or "HANDLING AN EMOTIONALLY DISTURBED OR DISORDERLY PERSON WHO IS EXHIBITING ABNORMAL BEHAVIOR". All of those are "actively involved".
> as they are engaged in enforcing the law that person needs to be eight feet away
I'm reasonably sure any court would consider the locus of action to be the first officer, not the second, and claims to the contrary would be dismissed. Probably why no-one is willing to defend the law from this injunction...
You really don't see the problem here? That's incredibly broad and would cover anything and everything a policeman does.
It is broad, yes, but claiming that an officer making sure people were 8ft away is part of the same law enforcement procedure as the cops making an arrest (and thus people would have to be an extra 8ft away) almost certainly isn't going to stand up in court.
Although we'll sadly never find out for sure because no-one is willing to defend it against the injunction. Maybe they'll have better luck on their 3rd go around.
You can argue they mean they need to be actively involved, but you quoted the term as if the law was explicit about it when it isn't. I don't see how keeping people away wouldn't be part of "questioning a suspicious person" and the "enforcing the law" is completely vague.
Admittedly, I also misquoted changing "Law Enforcement Activity" to "Police Activity," so I can see how mistakes happen.
Also, my simple gotcha might not work as the person filming would then also be the subject of police contact, meaning they could film.
Cops don't always follow laws to the letter.
The cameras are there to keep the police honest; if they didn't want to be recorded or be made to wear body cams, they shouldn't have done things like plant drugs or kill people. I strongly feel like police who do that kind of thing should be tried as civilians, the police protecting their own is a big part of the issue.
POLICE ARE CIVILIANS. They are not above the law, nor are they military members, or anything like that. They are bound by the same law as everyone else, no matter what they seem to want.
If you aren’t doing anything wrong, officers, why are you worried about being filmed?