An Arizona law that bans recording of “law enforcement activity” close up is drawing controversy, complaints, and constitutional questions.
Fox10 Phoenix:
On July 6, Arizona Governor Doug Ducey signed into law a bill that makes it illegal to record law enforcement within 8 feet (about 2.4 meters).
Under the new law, it is a misdemeanor if someone keeps recording, after getting a verbal warning to stop. There are, however, some exceptions to the law, including if the person recording is the one being questioned by police.
While supporters say the law is meant to protect law enforcement from harm or distraction, critics say the law is unconstitutional, and does nothing to enhance transparency.
The original proposal from Rep. John Kavanagh made it illegal to record within 15 feet of an officer interacting with someone unless the officer gave permission. The revised bill was approved on a 31-28 party-line vote Feb. 23 and lowered the distance to 8 feet.
It also now allows someone who is in a car stopped by police or is being questioned to tape the encounter and limits the scope of the types of police actions that trigger the law to only those that are possibly dangerous.
Kavanagh said he made the changes to address constitutional issues. He said the new 8-foot limit was based on a U.S. Supreme Court decision in a case involving abortion protesters.
Democratic Minority Leader Reginald Bolding said that the measure is the wrong way to boost transparency and ease the perception in minority communities that they are not safe from police misconduct.
“One way to not do that is telling them that they cannot use their cellphones or do any type of recording unless it’s within a specific set of guidelines,” Bolding said during a vote back in February.
Media groups including The Associated Press said the measure raises serious constitutional issues. They signed onto a letter from the National Press Photographers Association in opposition to the bill. Letting an officer decide on the spot what First Amendment-protected activity should be allowed would be problematic in many situations, the letter said.
Read The Arizona Law related to law enforcement activities for yourself here:
arizona law
What is this law supposed to do? 8 feet doesn’t prevent us from videoing police abuse.Report
It’s about the police feeling crowded by witnesses trying to videotape them doing something bad.
In practice, the.police will demonstrate a marked inability to differentiate between 8′ and 80′ when cameras are nearby.Report
I’m a cop, someone is recording me from 20 feet away, I walk towards them and now I’m closer than 8.Report
That too.Report
I’ll wait for the case where it’s the local Fox News affiliate at the accident scene, they’re streaming the live feed back to the studio w/o recording it, and the cop breaks a very expensive piece of gear. Or some combination of events like that. You know it’s going to happen.Report
It’s supposed to prevent another George Floyd. Absent the very close up recording, Derrick Chauvin would likely have been promoted by now.Report
The very close up recordings were bodycams. The gal with the 10 minutes of video… might be 8 feet away but I’d call it further. The other videos were further.
Now the first bill was going to ban videos a lot further than 8 feet and would have done exactly what you say. So… he tried and failed to do that and had to settle for something?
Hmm… if you thinking totally reforming all police everywhere at all times under all situations as too high a bar to cross but want to stop riots, then banning these videos might do that.Report
“The revised bill was approved on a 31-28 party-line vote..”
Gosh, I wonder what parties those were?Report
The interesting part of that is the narrowness of the margin. The governor’s seat is open in November (Ducey is term-limited out), and over the last few election cycles the Democrats have narrowed the Republicans’ legislative majorities to a bare minimum. It is entirely possible that AZ will flip from a red trifecta to a blue one in November — I’ve bet a couple of people that it will happen.
If so, I expect the AZ Republicans’ recent panic-mode laws like this one will be quietly overturned.Report
The talk of “Constitutional issues” ignores that the final arbiter of such issues is a court that has shown it is not particularly concerned about such “Constitutional issues,” especially when it comes to cops, and the Arizona legislature knows this.Report
A relevant event, maybe:
Report
So was the right to an abortion until it wasn’t.Report
The Founders were notoriously silent on the issue.Report
Was he the person being stopped?
This law seems to treat the person being stopped different than bystanders.Report
Lemme check the link…
Looks like he was a bystander.Report