The intention of the law is (was?) to equip cops with an invisible 16 foot diameter circle around them. This circle is to be used when one cop is misbehaving his partner walks towards any bystanders who happen to be filming and just has to brush this circle on them and then arrest the footage.
> his partner walks towards any bystanders who happen to be filming
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.)
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
Police officers are just people. There's always going to be people who abuse theirs power. Petty and malicious bullies revel in it a even.
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).
The idea that it won’t be used by a cops partner to arrest bystanders to prevent their filming is patently laughable, and verges on being a bad faith argument.
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.
LAPD did exactly this last week, too... at an LAPD sponsored movie night. [1] I didn't even invent this situation de novo.
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.
I'm not sure where you're getting this from. The law says the officers need to be engaged in "police activity," defined broadly enough to include almost anything, but it says nothing about needing to be "actively involved." Arguably maintaining a perimeter would be part of "questioning a suspicious person" or "enforcing the law" and thus would count as "police activity" meaning you need to film 8 feet away.
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 says nothing about needing to be "actively involved."
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...
> 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.
This comment makes no sense, walking towards bystanders to stave them off is definitely "police work" and actively involved. And even if it isn't, you can just start arguing with the bystanders, and suddenly it is police work.
They shouldn't have the right to ask you to stop filming. They're public servants with guns, they're intimidating. If they ask a citizen to stop filming, said citizen could interpret it as an order and assume that's the law.
I'm fairly sure interfering with police work is already covered by other laws and/or common sense.
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 who do that kind of thing should be tried as civilians
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.
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.
As a side note, I have seen here (Italy) a lot of ads on TV recently about the Meta-EssilorLuxottica spectacles with a recording camera and the "recordiquette" expected.
And BTW they have already been criticized because the led that should signal that the recording is on is tiny and not easily visible, and surely it won't be that difficult to cover it one way or the other.
If those (or similar) devices for whatever reason start becoming common, I would expect that there would be no way in practice to know whether someone is recording, besides policemen, everyone else, anywhere.
But these are completely different devices, these are sold for 330 Euro here, which on one side is a lot of money, but on the other they are not that much more expensive than any "normal" designer pair of sun glasses.
If any "influencer" will start using them you can be sure that everyone will want them, and they will become a way to show off not unlike the latest-latest iPhone or similar fashion items, and if they become common enough they will be misused.
If you are in public, there is nothing you can do about being recorded. You should assume that the only place you will find true privacy is in your own home. Beyond that the expectation of privacy is unreasonable.
Unfortunately, most of my friends and family have added various "home automation" devices. I have given up on being surprised at Siri or Alexa suddenly answering them, whether I'm visiting or on the phone. It seems everyone's on thd bandwagon.
Note that in, for instance, Spain and in public this would not be allowed without permission of the people you are photographing or filming. Depending on the case, the fines are quite out there.
So you can demand people from not filming you in public spaces, deleting the recordings or get the police involved. Not that many people do, but I have seen it happen.
Seems France has similar rules so probably more countries.
There are some nuances to this law - you can take peoples photos if they are in the way of your landscape/panorama/something else you are attempting to photograph.
You need their permission to publish it, however.
I personally don't agree with the Spaniards on this position. Its also illegal to photograph police in Spain - this is not a law I agree with one bit. Public officials should be public, always.
By and large, I agree with the sentiment that "we should be allowed to video cops", but public officials includes people like the DMV - those people should be allowed privacy when they aren't doing their job.
I don't agree. Public officials should be able to operate in the public. If they can't, they're not qualified for the job.
Too many times our public positions are occupied by bureaucrats who would wither at any oversight of their work. If you work in the public interest, expect public attention.
I am against not filming the police and indeed it makes injustice happen. Seems not as rife as the US, however that might be because it is less reported, I do not know. I think police should at least have functional body cams at all times, by law and if they did not function at a moment of a crime, they should have to explain that or get fined or fired depending. Watching American shows about police with bodycams and citizens filming makes me more convinced that that at least should be allowed.
Meaning? I can video anyone and be filmed by anyone (which I am against outside crimes in actual progress) except if it’s my underage kids having fun splattering around in the pool, I go to jail for kiddy porn in the US even though that’s normal here? It’s not sexual and all parents do it here to remember the good times. Different definitions of freedom. More (innocent) people in prison (also on pre trial) than anywhere else also seems not freedom to me. Having to carry a gun to protect myself also seems further away from freedom even though that seems to be the ultimate idea of freedom for some over there. With cheap AI involved, most things with cameras seems really the opposite of freedom to me. We create a virtual prison where we are tracked by 1000s of cameras (on phones or buildings) and we can only get out by going into the jungle or desert.
I don’t want to be filmed or photographed by anyone in public or private and I get most stuff kicked off social media easily because the data protection laws of the EU, which I like, if I did not give consent; but I am against that it is illegal in some countries to record the police. They need to be held accountable. I like it very much that the streets here are not littered (there are 0 where I live) with cams ‘against terrorism’ or what not; that is more important freedom for me.
Which freedom do you mean here? The freedom to record everything you see, or the freedom to expect at least some privacy even in public (which people believed they had before cameras, and automated tools for analyzing and spreading the image, became ubiquitous)?
Practically every freedom is infringing on somebody else's freedom. We should not be eager to assume that some specific freedom we treasure does not impose a restriction on somebody else. It's rarely a straightforward moral absolute. We balance conflicting rights all the time.
In Italy the Law is different, AFAIK there are no prohibitions on filming in public (be the target ordinary people or police/law officers) the limitations come into place when/if you want to "diffuse" the filmed material (i.e. post the video on social, youtube and similar), you need either an authorization[1] from the people filmed or you need to make them not recognizable (i.e. pixelate/obfuscate their faces and/or other recognizable areas).
I believe there are some exceptions, like public gatherings and similar and the purpose for which the video is published/made available but I think it is a fine line to walk on.
From what I understand about this specific device, the whole idea circles around Meta/Facebook (i.e. to publish the taken videos) and from a legal viewpoint it is likely to open a large can of worms.
[1] this takes the form - in theory - of a signed declaration by the subject including name, surname, address, etc. all "sensible data", I don't think anyone has ever done this outside professional filming
This is a huge relief. One of the last defensive weapons we civilians have against the military industrial complex that desires to create the police state, is the fact that we can record everything.
I can only hope that those who are behind this ban are learning that the right of the people to to hold their police force - and other violent forces - accountable, shall not be abrogated.
IMHO, the 1st Amendment Auditors are a new class of heroes, we all need right now ..
One big problem is that we record all these horrible offenses and needless violation of basic human rights, and nothing happens. A cop gets a paid vacation and is offered counseling for murdering someone. Maybe if you are lucky, you take the city to civil court and get money.
But there's still only a couple cops going to prison, and zero changes to make policing kill fewer people per year. Worse, a significant segment of the population says that any negativity towards police is unacceptable.
I think we are improving some in that regard. I am seeing a lot more "resigned for unrelated reasons" for cops that get caught on tape abusing their power. They may be moving to another police force somewhere else. But at least it's some progress. And I think police forces are starting to see cops with a public record like that as a liability.
I don't think its the case, necessarily, that 'nothing happens'. Police are being held accountable, more and more - but if we don't have the facts, the accountability can't be enforced with prosecutions.
So, this is definitely a step in the right direction.
49 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 101 ms ] threadCop watchers in AZ were basically going to test it and the clarity on distance saw a lot of positive comments.
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?
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"
And BTW they have already been criticized because the led that should signal that the recording is on is tiny and not easily visible, and surely it won't be that difficult to cover it one way or the other.
If those (or similar) devices for whatever reason start becoming common, I would expect that there would be no way in practice to know whether someone is recording, besides policemen, everyone else, anywhere.
If any "influencer" will start using them you can be sure that everyone will want them, and they will become a way to show off not unlike the latest-latest iPhone or similar fashion items, and if they become common enough they will be misused.
So you can demand people from not filming you in public spaces, deleting the recordings or get the police involved. Not that many people do, but I have seen it happen.
Seems France has similar rules so probably more countries.
You need their permission to publish it, however.
I personally don't agree with the Spaniards on this position. Its also illegal to photograph police in Spain - this is not a law I agree with one bit. Public officials should be public, always.
By and large, I agree with the sentiment that "we should be allowed to video cops", but public officials includes people like the DMV - those people should be allowed privacy when they aren't doing their job.
Too many times our public positions are occupied by bureaucrats who would wither at any oversight of their work. If you work in the public interest, expect public attention.
I don’t want to be filmed or photographed by anyone in public or private and I get most stuff kicked off social media easily because the data protection laws of the EU, which I like, if I did not give consent; but I am against that it is illegal in some countries to record the police. They need to be held accountable. I like it very much that the streets here are not littered (there are 0 where I live) with cams ‘against terrorism’ or what not; that is more important freedom for me.
Practically every freedom is infringing on somebody else's freedom. We should not be eager to assume that some specific freedom we treasure does not impose a restriction on somebody else. It's rarely a straightforward moral absolute. We balance conflicting rights all the time.
I believe there are some exceptions, like public gatherings and similar and the purpose for which the video is published/made available but I think it is a fine line to walk on.
From what I understand about this specific device, the whole idea circles around Meta/Facebook (i.e. to publish the taken videos) and from a legal viewpoint it is likely to open a large can of worms.
[1] this takes the form - in theory - of a signed declaration by the subject including name, surname, address, etc. all "sensible data", I don't think anyone has ever done this outside professional filming
I can only hope that those who are behind this ban are learning that the right of the people to to hold their police force - and other violent forces - accountable, shall not be abrogated.
IMHO, the 1st Amendment Auditors are a new class of heroes, we all need right now ..
But there's still only a couple cops going to prison, and zero changes to make policing kill fewer people per year. Worse, a significant segment of the population says that any negativity towards police is unacceptable.
So, this is definitely a step in the right direction.