Filming police officers within 8 feet soon will be considered a misdemeanor offense in some cases in Arizona after Republican Gov. Doug Ducey signed into law a bill prohibiting certain recordings of law-enforcement activity.

The law bans people from recording police if those filming are within 8 feet of officers and have received a verbal warning. It defines law enforcement activity as officers questioning suspicious people, conducting an arrest or generally enforcing the law.

It also prohibits filming within 8 feet of officers interacting with what the law calls “an emotionally disturbed person or disorderly” individual exhibiting abnormal behavior.

The bill won approval in the Arizona legislature along party lines, with Republicans voting in favor of it. Mr. Ducey signed the bill into law Wednesday.



The bill was sponsored by Arizona state Rep. John Kavanagh, who worked as a police officer on the East Coast for two decades, according to his campaign website.

Neither Mr. Ducey nor Mr. responded to requests for comment.

Mr. Kavanagh, in an op-ed earlier this year, said the 8-foot buffer was meant to prevent clashes between police and bystanders during tense situations.


Republican Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey signed a law, based on a bill pushed by Republican state representative, that restricts how people can film police officers as they work.
PHOTO: ROSS D. FRANKLIN/ASSOCIATED PRESS
“I recognize the constitutional right of people to videotape police officers performing their duties,” he wrote. “However, the United States Supreme Court has also ruled that this right is subject to reasonable time, place and manner limitations.”

The law has some limitations. If police activity is occurring indoors and on private property, a person authorized on that property can record within eight feet “unless a law enforcement officer determines that the person is interfering” or deems the area unsafe, the law says.

A person who is the subject of police contact is allowed to record within 8 feet in some cases, as long as they aren’t interfering with “lawful police actions,” the law states.

David Loy, legal director for the First Amendment Coalition, a nonprofit organization focused on protecting free speech, said he expects the law to be challenged in court for several reasons. Among them, he said, is that its wording is too vague, which creates potential for abuse.

“If I’m filming a law enforcement officer having a conversation, how am I supposed to know whether that is questioning a suspicious person or giving directions, or discussing the weather?” he said.

While supporters have said the law is meant to increase officer and public safety, Mr. Loy said bans already are in place against interfering with law enforcement arrests or detentions.

He said he think a different intent is behind the law. “It’s really about hostility to video recording of law enforcement,” he said, adding that recordings of officers are “an indispensable tool in holding police officers accountable to abuse of power.”

After the Arizona legislature passed the bill, The National Press Photographers Association, which opposed it, wrote to Mr. Ducey asking him to veto it. The letter was signed by 23 organizations, including The Center for Investigative Reporting, the Associated Press and several other media outlets.

“Now that it has been signed into law (it) may result in a constitutional court challenge which could be very costly to Arizona taxpayers,” NPPA lawyer Mickey H. Osterreicher said Friday.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona also opposed the bill, saying it was unconstitutional and that it gave officers too much discretion.

“This bill does not account for real-world scenarios like protests or along busy roads where people can’t keep their distance,” the ACLU said in a statement before the bill’s passage.

Media attorney Herschel Fink, who has represented clients obstructed from filming police officers, said while the Arizona law may restrict press access, it could hold up in court if contested. Precedent surrounding similar cases is mixed, he said. “A court might say eight feet is not an abusive or unreasonable distance,” Mr. Fink said.

Videos of police interactions shot by other civilians and journalists in recent years have been pivotal in uncovering misconduct in some cases.

Darnella Frazier, then 17 years old, captured video of a Minneapolis police officer killing George Floyd while in custody in 2020. She won a special Pulitzer citation in 2021 for recording the more than nine minutes Derek Chauvin knelt on Mr. Floyd’s neck.

The 46-year-old former cop is serving a 22 ½-year sentence for second-degree murder after a jury found him guilty in state court in April 2021.

On Thursday, Mr. Chauvin was sentenced to more than 20 years in federal prison after pleading guilty to violating Mr. Floyd’s civil rights.

—Jennifer Calfas contributed to this article.


link:https://www.wsj.com/articles/arizona-moves-to-restrict-filming-of-police-officers-11657318495?mod=hp_listb_pos3

Mixed feeling on this one.
I don't think anyone should interfere with law enforcement doing one of the hardest parts of their job, but I suspect this is already covered under interfering with a police officer laws.
Nobody needs to be within 8 ft. to record them. Being that close or closer, even without recording, is a bad idea, but this is too open to misuse.

With current technology, you don't need to be too close to record things/activities in details.

I do not have a problem with this. Police have a hard enough job without being distracted by having some one putting a camera in their face and shouting at them.

As a kid growing up I was always taught to respect someones personal space. The distance I always remembered was 4 to 5 feet. Fast forward to Covid and we now called it social distancing as tho it was some thing new.
I thing this is a good thing for the police officers health and safety. With cameras now you do not have to be on top of someone to film them.
I think the Rodney King video was filmed from an apartment and that was back in the 90s

quote:

Originally posted by 220-9er:
Mixed feeling on this one.
I don't think anyone should interfere with law enforcement doing one of the hardest parts of their job, but I suspect this is already covered under interfering with a police officer laws.
Nobody needs to be within 8 ft. to record them. Being that close or closer, even without recording, is a bad idea, but this is too open to misuse.

That's my first thought as well, laws already exist about interfering with police. Cue cases where people use zoom on their iphone to record an arrest to make it look like they're very close, then they get charges against them for violating this law. How about you're wearing a GoPro camera in a crowd and someone nearby gets arrested. Lots of opportunity for misuse.

quote:

Originally posted by bryan11:

quote:

Originally posted by 220-9er:
Mixed feeling on this one.
I don't think anyone should interfere with law enforcement doing one of the hardest parts of their job, but I suspect this is already covered under interfering with a police officer laws.
Nobody needs to be within 8 ft. to record them. Being that close or closer, even without recording, is a bad idea, but this is too open to misuse.

That's my first thought as well, laws already exist about interfering with police. Cue cases where people use zoom on their iphone to record an arrest to make it look like they're very close, then they get charges against them for violating this law. How about you're wearing a GoPro camera in a crowd and someone nearby gets arrested. Lots of opportunity for misuse.

Yep, this is a bad law and needs more work or needs to be dropped, one or the other.

The restriction of filming aspect of the law may be problematic if challenged. It may violate the freedom press provision of the First Amendment. They should have just made the law prohibiting any person not directly involved in an incident from getting within 8' of an officer dealing with a subject in the line of duty, unless requested by the officer. It would be irrelevant if they were filming or not.

quote:

The law bans people from recording police if those filming are within 8 feet of officers and have received a verbal warning. It defines law enforcement activity as officers questioning suspicious people, conducting an arrest or generally enforcing the law.

Say, I'm out and about, open carrying and videotaping the beautiful scenery, all legal activities, and some doofus called in a "suspicious person" on the street. Cops come and question me, and they will no doubt be much less than 8 feet to me. They're going to shut my filming down? I don't see how this can stand up to a court challenge.

The article points out that it doesn't say you can't film, it says you can't get within 8 ft of an active law enforcement officer engaged in an interaction, and film, unless you are,

A) the subject of the law enforcement activity in some manner or
B) on your own property with law enforcement activity/interaction,

so in 12131's scenario, he would be allowed to continue to film the interaction.

The law has some limitations. If police activity is occurring indoors and on private property, a person authorized on that property can record within eight feet “unless a law enforcement officer determines that the person is interfering” or deems the area unsafe, the law says. A person who is the subject of police contact is allowed to record within 8 feet in some cases, as long as they aren’t interfering with “lawful police actions,” the law states.



Looks as if it's an additional charge they can add on to people who surround law enforcement in the middle of an action such as an arrest who get too close to the activity, in so much so as to potentially interfere, for a short twatter or fakebook feed.

There are as stated laws already on the books about interfering with police activity, this just adds an upgraded charge to try and control the idiots who rush up to film something for the purpose of being the first to post. Many times nothing comes of the activity, but now we have everyone who wants to be twitter famous rushing to film things. Not to record the action to help make sure it's correct or that LEO's are doing the job properly, but to see if they can catch a train wreck.

8 feet isn't a lot of distance...

I've been watching and learning from Lehto's Law on youtube. He's a Michigan attorney whose main practice is the Auto Lemon Laws and other such consumer affairs. He also taught at a law school for some years.

He addresses this topic and brings up some very interesting thoughts to ponder.

If you watch YouTube, there are a lot of so called 1st Amendment Auditors that will go up to the police and try to provoke a confrontation with the police claiming the "press" has a right to film, which they do. But the problem is they interfere with a traffic stop for example, and harass the police that are trying to do a job.

When the police ask them to step back and let them do their job, they are called tyrants, cursed out and other nasty things to get a response so they can put them on their channel and collect money for clicks and views.

While I don't think that this is the main reason for the law, I'm sure it does have something to do with it.

8 feet is REALLY close. I'd have made it more.

I don't give a shit if someone video tapes me doing my job. Hell, until last year and I got promoted, EVEN I WAS VIDEOING every interaction via my bodycam.

But, don't get in the way. Don't become part of the problem, and MOST importantly, DON'T PUT YOURSELF IN A SITUATION WHERE YOU WILL GET HURT, AND THEN I HAVE TO WATCH OUT FOR, AND BE LIABLE FOR YOUR DUMB ASS.

It's unbelievable how many idiots put themselves in harms way like this.

If you see an arrest, you probably have NO IDEA who the arrestee is. Could he be some person who is having his rights violated? Maybe, unlikely but maybe. Could he be a violent felon who is gonna shoot it out with the police cause he doesn't want go back to prison? Maybe. Could it be ANYWHERE on the spectrum between those two? Certainly. But you don't know what is going to happen.

If violence starts and is directed to the officers, do you REALLY want to be standing next to them?

It amazes me how many idiots will see us roll out of our cars, surround a house with rifles drawn and set up containment. Every idiot neighbor wants to right next to us and ask "What's going on?"

My usual reply is "Can't you see there are guns here, if they start shooting at me, and you're next to me, you realize you're gonna get shot? GET OUT OF HERE!"

The usual reply is mumbled "sorry, dont' have to be mean about it"

Ya dude, I'm mean cause I want to get your dumb ass out of danger..

Video all you want. Just don't get involved, stay out of the way, and for god sakes, don't distract me to the point where I have to worry about your safety due to your ignorance. Be a witness.

Kevin

Filming me war story:
I went on a family fight where hubby tuned up mommy pretty good and she fled to the neighbor's house, and they called the cops. After getting the details, my partner and I went over to arrest hubby.
He answered the door with a giant VHS format video camera and announced he was "putting this all on film". I stood up very formally, straightened my tie and said into the camera: "good evening Mr. XXXX, I am officer XXXX, representing the police dept. Its my unfortunate duty to inform you are now under arrest for Domestic Violence and you will be accompanying me to jail". Hubby shut off the camera, said "shit" and was cuffed. My partner said it was an Oscar worthy performance. I never did get a copy of the tape and since it was pre cell phone days, the event never went viral.
And it ought to be 25 feet, not 8.

I was taught if a cop was arresting someone to leave the area. Simple. I have done that more than once in the French Quarter.

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
The restriction of filming aspect of the law may be problematic if challenged. It may violate the freedom press provision of the First Amendment. They should have just made the law prohibiting any person not directly involved in an incident from getting within 8' of an officer dealing with a subject in the line of duty, unless requested by the officer. It would be irrelevant if they were filming or not.

We’ve had this for years as part of our Disorderly Conduct statute.
One can’t be within close proximity to a fire or emergency scene.
You get verbal direction to step on back I give you a definitive point where you can be and you stay there are we are good. If for whatever reason the scene changes and folks need to move again it’s explained and the new place shown.
Decide to come back near the scene congratulations you are now part of the scene in handcuffs.
Makes no difference if you are recording or not.

I've seen enough videos where police officers doing their jobs properly have been closely surrounded by idiots with phones trying to advocate for the perp and argue with the officers without having any clue what is going on.

If it was me I would lose patience very fast and command all to stay outside a 20 foot radius or be arrested for obstruction and disorderly conduct. And the next phone stuck in my face would get batted away, and its owner put on the ground and cuffed.

But then I'm not a cop.

Having had copblock and other activists on my stops before my typical response to "I'm recording this" is me too. I typically point out a nearby location where they are free to view, listen, and record the stop but request that they ask permission to record from the person I've actually stopped. All of the people I contact are more creeped out by the activist recording them than me so far so I must be doing something right. My biggest issue with them is some intentionally go out and break the law just to have a forced interaction, yell and scream and bind up our time and then edit the video so we look unreasonable or dump the footage when we dont take the bait.
I dont care about the actual filming though it plays hard into the safety factor when some model citizen decides to clear leather on their cellphone right in your face. I'd have made the boundary further but I think the laws hearts in the right place. It is important for cops to not take advantage of such things and crush this law as well. For the above question or instance honestly if coming to contact someone holding a videocamera I'd actually love for them to continue holding it. Keeps their hands busy. Is there a law against it? Sure. Is it my discretion to enforce or not enforce it at that moment? Sure. Just random personal thoughts and not a reflection or statement representing my agency/dept or the laws within my jurisdiction.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
With current technology, you don't need to be too close to record things/activities in details.

The iPhone 13Pro/Max has a dedicated telephoto (3x) lens. 8 ft is plenty close, and you might just have to step back if using the telephoto.