The police officer is also capable of moving. If I'm filming 20 feet away, he only has to take a few steps and suddenly I'm violating the law and he can arrest me.
There are plenty of cases where filming a police officer was used to show that the police officer was breaking the law and not the citizen. This includes some of the high profile cases where police brutality killed innocent people.
If you are out in a position of power, you shouldn’t have any expectation of privacy, especially when there’s a history of that power being abused.
the police will walk towards the person filming to threaten and arrest them, it’s already fairly common for police to get uncomfortably close to someone to encourage pushing
Yes, many developers write shitty software that has results in human fatalities. For example: the vertical over correction written into the Boeing 737 that resulted in two aircraft crashes killing hundreds of people.
Don't forget the steady stream of ransomware infestations and credit card dumps. We know how to write safe software, NASA and Dr Richard Hipp have proved that it can be done, but we choose not to because there are no consequences. Consequently, all continues as before.
The new law has legalized an existing abuse - police threatening concerned observers who are recording - so I suppose you could say it's no longer abuse. Compelling stuff!
As a mere coder, your not granted extraordinary power to stop, arrest, and kill with little risk of legal repercussions. Anyone granted such power should be on camera the entire time they are working and any laws they break, on the job or off, should require maximum sentence be served. They should be held to a much higher standard then anyone else. They’re not even held to the standard of mere coders, who absolutely can be monitored legally, regardless of any courtesy they may expect.
The police are granted tremendous power by the state. They have the authority to use their sole judgement to kill citizens on US soil. This is a power granted to virtually no other group. As such, it is absolutely critical that this power not be abused and we should therefore have strong systems of state and citizen oversight over police behavior. That's the bargain. We give the police guns and let them kill people but the cost is that we get to watch them like hawks.
I agree with your characterization. It's often described as a monopoly on force. States, counties, and cities all have the right to use force to injure or kill you. "With great power comes great responsibility." Civilized societies need police forces (not everyone is a rational actor) but we should nearly always err on the side of mistrusting the police when it comes to policies and laws. People should become police understanding that they will be under the microscope at all times. That's the price they should pay for wielding firearms, forcing compliance, and the ability to arrest people.
Just because laws might be broken or abused, that's not a good enough reason not to have laws. This law is meant to lower the temperature in situations that are already stressful enough without someone getting in the cop's face with their phone. If you can video an arrest from 10 feet away, that's good enough. Also, any cops abusing this law will still be recorded doing it.
One problem is that voices obey the inverse square law; the received power of the audio will be inversely proportional to the square of distance. The new minimum distance will often be enough to prevent capturing their words, with the direct consequence that recordings will not be able to capture what is said. They become less accountable.
The law is meant to give police a pretense to arrest people recording them and give them plausible deniability; eg "looks like I misjudged the distance". Meanwhile people were still arrested which is a punishment with consequences in of itself. That's in the best case where the charges are dropped, worst case is they have prove it in court with all the associated burdens and costs. Even if they get off, that's still a punishment. And for what? This law isn't needed for any other reason, police already have the authority to clear an area they are working in.
This will be abused by cops against first amendment auditors especially. This will also be challenged in and hopefully force the courts to answer the legality of recording law enforcement in any capacity instead of leaving it in limbo like they have now.
If a foreign country had a rogue police force that killed citizens and then passed a law criminalizing the recording of the police we'd easily call them a dictatorship.
You are being downvoted and your comment is correct. Functioning democracy is distinct from mob rule. This notion is one of the reasons why rights such as the right to a public trial without unnecessary delay, the right to a lawyer, the right to an impartial jury, and the right to know who your accusers are and the nature of the charges and evidence against you were codified in the Constitution
Democracy should produce an acceptable result in the end, but in the short term allows terrible things to happen. I guess that is worrying, as we can't always wait for things to get better, the terrible thing might kill us before then.
Except that the politicians get to pick their voters through gerrymandering instead of the voters picking their representatives like in a proper democracy.
Of course, cops are no match for the MIGHTY VOTER. When I see cops abusing someone on the street, I will no longer stop and record, I will merely smirk at them, for it is I, the MIGHTY VOTER, that actually controls the cops. And when I go cast my ballot in a few years, I will laugh in their face, for my vote has the power to fire them at once. And when the next election comes, and this law has not yet been repealed, I will know that the system is functioning perfectly fine, and it is actually our fault for not using our voting power to repeal this law.
If you sort by: "People killed by security forces", out of the top 34 countries, 33 are underdeveloped or developing (and several are at war or have an ongoing civil war). The US is in 7th place.
Interestingly, Canada is the 35th, but it still has about 9 times fewer cases per capita than the US...
The math is off. Divide the deaths by the population, that column is wrong. Canada is actually at less than a third of that number, based on their own columns.
In virtually all of those, the shot attackers were armed themselves. Does stopping someone actively trying to kill a third-party make the police force "rogue"?
The difference is that here in Germany, our police officers don't have to fear that the person they're stopping is someone who is running drugs and already has two convictions, meaning any third conviction locks him up for life - so they can decide to simply shoot the cop and hope to get away versus a guaranteed life in prison [1].
Additionally, German police is training their people for ~2.5-3 years [2], whereas the US training is a couple of weeks at worst and a national average of 19 weeks [3].
The US needs to get a lot under control if it wants less police murders: they need to get rid of the absurd amounts of guns floating around, they need a drastic sentencing reform and the complete end of all three-strike policies, they (and fwiw, we too) need to end the "war on drugs", and they need to actually treat police training like any regular job education.
Unfortunately, getting the required majorities to fix all that is completely impossible.
Go back and read the article I responded to. It says he shot at police during the pursuit and there is a picture of the gun found in the car. It was reasonable given the circumstances to assume he was armed when he turned and they opened fire.
Gee, I wonder why some ultra-radicalized militia appeared in May 2014. Will we ever find out?
> On <<12 April>>, unmarked pro-Russian militants lead by FSB agent Igor Girkin seized the Donetsk city office of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and two other police offices in the oblast
This is purely a Pyrrhic victory. The courts have already ruled that filming police is protected by the First Amendment. It doesn’t matter whether you’re 8 feet or 20 feet. You can film them. Someone will challenge this, they will get arrested, it will go to court, and a judge will slap it down. This really is overblown.
I have more faith in the court system than our politicians. In my humble opinion, politicians hate making hard decisions, so they hope that the courts will intervene.
Depends on the judge and on the political environment. There are many laws out there that boldly violate the bill of rights, yet breaking those laws has been a felony for decades.
This is radical forgive me, but I think if there are laws out there that boldly violate the Bill of Rights, then it’s our duty to challenge those laws.
I really hope someone challenges Arizona’s law, and continues to film police. Unfortunately the vast majority of people cannot afford to be arrested, to fight their arrest, and prevail in court.
> if there are laws out there that boldly violate the Bill of Rights, then it’s our duty to challenge those laws.
Yes, but I don't see your attitude meshing well with people who actually do the challenging in practice. They are wizened by their struggles and those of us on the sidelines should pay attention to their reality.
You have a right to film public happenings, but not to interfere with police. Arizona has codified that inside 8ft of active police work is “interfering”.
I am not so sure about this with the current Supreme Court. They seem to be quite selective with where they are strict constitutionalists and where they aren’t.
That doesn't stop many drone operators from flying them in parks, on mountains, or over residential areas for kicks. Law enforcement routinely fly drones over entire cities to obtain location and surveillance data without a warrant. I don't see your point.
This definitely would not pass constitutional muster. It's been clearly established that if it's happening in public, it's fair game. Furthermore, I'd imagine the onus would be on the Police to affirmatively prove that the person is interfering - they couldn't just say "you're interfering with me, turn it off". This is a horrible law.
> Violators could face a misdemeanor, but only after being verbally warned and continuing to record anyway.
> Exceptions were made for people at the center of an interaction with police...
They are working, you are not involved, they ask you to not interfere, you cannot be bothered to move a couple yards, and the constitution should worry about you?
> This is a horrible law.
No, this is just prejudice on your side or lack of reading comprehension... or of reading at all.
>> Violators could face a misdemeanor, but only after being verbally warned and continuing to record anyway. > Exceptions were made for people at the center of an interaction with police...
> They are working, you are not involved, they ask you to not interfere, you cannot be bothered to move a couple yards, and the constitution should worry about you?
Everything you just detailed has just as much relevance to people who are not recording. Why do you think the law called out recording within that radius?
While I agree with you, we have had a lot of "free speech/the constitution isn't absolute" talk lately. I sort of hope a court upholds this to teach that crowd the error of their ways.
I cannot help to wonder how long it will take for the following scenario to play out.
1. Someone films the police from a distance.
2. The police moves closer, and either gets too close and arrests you. or..
3. You start moving away from them, and they yell stop, and arrest you for trying to run from them, or for not complying.
I hope you guys fix whatever is going on in your country.
You forgot 4: you keep filming while they are far enough and stop when they get close to you. This way, you comply with the law, and you have enough material for court in case of misbehavior.
Yeah, so what? You filmed the beginning, you filmed the police asking you to stop: which judge will ever trust them when they'll describe how you slipped on a banana peel?
By the policemen hole principle, with N+1 camera people spread out (over 16 ft apart) among N policemen, there is always one camera person that doesn't fit into a policeman's 8 ft vicinity.
Exceptions were made for people at the center of an interaction with police, anyone standing in an enclosed structure on private property where police activity was occurring and occupants of a vehicle stopped by police as long as recording in those instances didn't interfere with police actions.
This is the predictable and obvious goal of the law: To give law enforcement an easy way to criminalize someone who is trying to hold them accountable. All the police have to do to arrest a photographer is suddenly run up within 8 feet of them. They can also now fan out in a cop-mesh, 8 feet from one another, so that nobody without a telephoto lens can get close enough to film their ill deeds.
Well, it's our country's Supreme Court that has (incorrectly) decided to allow this kind of crap.
(Ofc they haven't yet okayed this one specifically, but everyone knows that they'll either allow this law or take a very long time to strike it down and refrain from punishing anyone allowed)
I mean if they just want to arrest you, they can just cite you for "disorderly conduct" or similar and take you in.
If they want to cite you for this law, you'd either have a recording to show the jury, or the cop would have to explain to the court why they cited you for recording them when there was no recording.
In short, this doesn't move the needle on bogus arrests and makes it clear at what distance you should be when recording the cops to avoid getting in their way, so it seems pointless to fight it.
That's an interpretation of the law. Another, and more likely interpretation of the law is that the purpose is to prevent people from recording abusive police interactions to stymie reforms of law enforcement practices and to prevent victims of police abuses from seeking justice.
It doesn't care what "the point of the law" is. It cares what's written.
It's already illegal to interfere. Now there's a magic line in which you can't get too close regardless of if you interfere or not.
What if my 14 YO son wanders off, and is now being questioned? I have to choose between engaging with the police officer ("my son is a minor, and you don't have permission to question him") and recording the interaction.
What if my friend and I are stopped, and they are getting questioned? I now have to turn away, and potentially escalate the situation by looking like I'm running, to record the interaction.
What if the police officer unexpectedly pulls a gun on my husband, and the officer is right beneath my unenclosed porch? I have to leave my house to reposition myself so I can record, potentially missing the critical 30 seconds.
> Photographing or more commonly videotaping police activity is one of the most contentious areas of photographer/videographer rights. When it comes to filming police activity, the federal courts are not in agreement as to whether there is even a right to do it. In a case about prisoner punishment, the U.S. Supreme Court said, “For a constitutional right to be clearly established, its contours must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right … in the light of pre-existing law the unlawfulness must be apparent.” Hope v. Pelzer (2002)
> Two U.S. Circuit courts, the 1st and the 11th, say that there is a right to photograph/videotape police activity. The 9th Circuit provides some protection if police activity is considered a “matter of public interest.” Courts in the 3rd, 4th and 5th Circuits have said that the right to videotape the police has not conclusively been established. Courts in the remaining circuits have not ruled directly on the issue.
AZ is in the 9th circuit:
> In its 1995 opinion in Fordyce v. City of Seattle, the 9th Circuit stated that there is a First Amendment right to “film matters of public interest.” ...
> The question of whether a person has the right to photograph or videotape police activities in the 9th Circuit has not been directly addressed and, thus, has not been fully answered.
>For a constitutional right to be clearly established, its contours must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right
I always thought that reporting on the government was the entire literal point of the first amendment covering journalism and reporting
Does that mean that US police officers don't know the amendments of the constitution? I knew they weren't required to know the law, but to not know the basic amendments seems absolutely insane
It sounds to me like police have carte-blanche to do whatever they want with zero regard for actual laws
> qualified immunity is a legal principle that grants government officials performing discretionary (optional) functions immunity from civil suits unless the plaintiff shows that the official violated "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known".
From the link I gave, "The question of whether a person has the right to photograph or videotape police activities in the 9th Circuit has not been directly addressed and, thus, has not been fully answered. ... Courts in the 3rd, 4th and 5th Circuits have said that the right to videotape the police has not conclusively been established."
Since these are not "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights", the police officer has qualified immunity.
That all said, you've nailed it on the head. 'Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor has noted a "disturbing trend" of siding with police officers using excessive force with qualified immunity,[45] describing it as "sanctioning a 'shoot first, think later' approach to policing".' , quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity#Police_brut...
It's a shame that it will probably take many people getting caught up in this law over multiple years before it's thrown out as blatantly unconstitutional.
How would programmers like it if folks had a camera in your face a foot away from you while you’re doing you’re coding away. This is a good law. You can still film - bit don’t interfere with the cop’s job which is hard enough already
There are already laws about not interfering with an active crime scene. This is an additional law that says that interference is simply standing with a phone within 8 feet, which I find to be lol nah.
Besides, programmers already have cameras less than a foot away when coding. Productivity trackers aren’t illegal!
147 comments
[ 4.3 ms ] story [ 200 ms ] threadHow, if they are recorded from further away?
Far as I look at it, codifies where you CAN be. Presently, you couldn’t get that close up for an arrest for a variety of reasons in practice.
Seeing as I, a mere coder, don’t want people “over my shoulder” it is only reasonable and fair for a similar affordance.
As YouTube shows, there are plenty of police officers who hate when bystanders film, and retaliate at every chance.
Now all they have to do is run up on you and arrest you for being within a 8 foot proximity? They are going to love it.
If you are out in a position of power, you shouldn’t have any expectation of privacy, especially when there’s a history of that power being abused.
This is a case of 'who watches the watchers', not 'who watches the coders'.
2. You are not an agent of the state exercising a monopoly on violence when you’re writing code.
Unfortunately, that is not a given.
That’s not supported by actual statistics, even if it’s a popular narrative among some political groups.
What other statistic should I be looking at?
Interestingly, Canada is the 35th, but it still has about 9 times fewer cases per capita than the US...
Which makes sense, given the US’s problems with organized crime and drug trafficking — and a generally more armed society.
Something is very wrong with the American police/society/whatever, you can't deny that.
Additionally, German police is training their people for ~2.5-3 years [2], whereas the US training is a couple of weeks at worst and a national average of 19 weeks [3].
The US needs to get a lot under control if it wants less police murders: they need to get rid of the absurd amounts of guns floating around, they need a drastic sentencing reform and the complete end of all three-strike policies, they (and fwiw, we too) need to end the "war on drugs", and they need to actually treat police training like any regular job education.
Unfortunately, getting the required majorities to fix all that is completely impossible.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-strikes_law
[2] https://www.mit-sicherheit-anders.de/
[3] https://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/usa-kritik-an-ausbild...
Difference is that they do not except (that much) someone will have gun.
https://nypost.com/2022/07/03/ohio-police-release-video-of-o...
> https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/03/us/akron-police-shooting-...
> Founded 5 May 2014 – present
Gee, I wonder why some ultra-radicalized militia appeared in May 2014. Will we ever find out?
> On <<12 April>>, unmarked pro-Russian militants lead by FSB agent Igor Girkin seized the Donetsk city office of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and two other police offices in the oblast
Ah, that's why.
Plus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
I really hope someone challenges Arizona’s law, and continues to film police. Unfortunately the vast majority of people cannot afford to be arrested, to fight their arrest, and prevail in court.
Yes, but I don't see your attitude meshing well with people who actually do the challenging in practice. They are wizened by their struggles and those of us on the sidelines should pay attention to their reality.
You have a right to film public happenings, but not to interfere with police. Arizona has codified that inside 8ft of active police work is “interfering”.
https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/HB2319S.pdf
> Violators could face a misdemeanor, but only after being verbally warned and continuing to record anyway. > Exceptions were made for people at the center of an interaction with police...
They are working, you are not involved, they ask you to not interfere, you cannot be bothered to move a couple yards, and the constitution should worry about you?
> This is a horrible law.
No, this is just prejudice on your side or lack of reading comprehension... or of reading at all.
> They are working, you are not involved, they ask you to not interfere, you cannot be bothered to move a couple yards, and the constitution should worry about you?
Everything you just detailed has just as much relevance to people who are not recording. Why do you think the law called out recording within that radius?
Yes.
1. Someone films the police from a distance. 2. The police moves closer, and either gets too close and arrests you. or.. 3. You start moving away from them, and they yell stop, and arrest you for trying to run from them, or for not complying.
I hope you guys fix whatever is going on in your country.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2018/06/28/...
Exceptions were made for people at the center of an interaction with police, anyone standing in an enclosed structure on private property where police activity was occurring and occupants of a vehicle stopped by police as long as recording in those instances didn't interfere with police actions.
They will immediately claim you are doing so.
(Ofc they haven't yet okayed this one specifically, but everyone knows that they'll either allow this law or take a very long time to strike it down and refrain from punishing anyone allowed)
If they want to cite you for this law, you'd either have a recording to show the jury, or the cop would have to explain to the court why they cited you for recording them when there was no recording.
In short, this doesn't move the needle on bogus arrests and makes it clear at what distance you should be when recording the cops to avoid getting in their way, so it seems pointless to fight it.
That is not the point of the law. The point is to stay out of the immediate proximity to the action.
It doesn't care what "the point of the law" is. It cares what's written.
It's already illegal to interfere. Now there's a magic line in which you can't get too close regardless of if you interfere or not.
What if my 14 YO son wanders off, and is now being questioned? I have to choose between engaging with the police officer ("my son is a minor, and you don't have permission to question him") and recording the interaction.
What if my friend and I are stopped, and they are getting questioned? I now have to turn away, and potentially escalate the situation by looking like I'm running, to record the interaction.
What if the police officer unexpectedly pulls a gun on my husband, and the officer is right beneath my unenclosed porch? I have to leave my house to reposition myself so I can record, potentially missing the critical 30 seconds.
> Photographing or more commonly videotaping police activity is one of the most contentious areas of photographer/videographer rights. When it comes to filming police activity, the federal courts are not in agreement as to whether there is even a right to do it. In a case about prisoner punishment, the U.S. Supreme Court said, “For a constitutional right to be clearly established, its contours must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right … in the light of pre-existing law the unlawfulness must be apparent.” Hope v. Pelzer (2002)
> Two U.S. Circuit courts, the 1st and the 11th, say that there is a right to photograph/videotape police activity. The 9th Circuit provides some protection if police activity is considered a “matter of public interest.” Courts in the 3rd, 4th and 5th Circuits have said that the right to videotape the police has not conclusively been established. Courts in the remaining circuits have not ruled directly on the issue.
AZ is in the 9th circuit:
> In its 1995 opinion in Fordyce v. City of Seattle, the 9th Circuit stated that there is a First Amendment right to “film matters of public interest.” ...
> The question of whether a person has the right to photograph or videotape police activities in the 9th Circuit has not been directly addressed and, thus, has not been fully answered.
I always thought that reporting on the government was the entire literal point of the first amendment covering journalism and reporting
It sounds to me like police have carte-blanche to do whatever they want with zero regard for actual laws
Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity:
> qualified immunity is a legal principle that grants government officials performing discretionary (optional) functions immunity from civil suits unless the plaintiff shows that the official violated "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known".
From the link I gave, "The question of whether a person has the right to photograph or videotape police activities in the 9th Circuit has not been directly addressed and, thus, has not been fully answered. ... Courts in the 3rd, 4th and 5th Circuits have said that the right to videotape the police has not conclusively been established."
Since these are not "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights", the police officer has qualified immunity.
That all said, you've nailed it on the head. 'Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor has noted a "disturbing trend" of siding with police officers using excessive force with qualified immunity,[45] describing it as "sanctioning a 'shoot first, think later' approach to policing".' , quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity#Police_brut...
Besides, programmers already have cameras less than a foot away when coding. Productivity trackers aren’t illegal!
https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/frasier-v-evans...
As it stands right now, if you film the cops, they can take your device, delete the video, and be protected by qualified immunity.
https://www.npr.org/2021/06/11/1005601724/darnella-frazier-t...