Judge temporarily blocks AZ law that would ban recording video of police

[Half Cocked]

An Arizona law that would make it illegal to create video recordings of police in certain circumstances will not go into effect Sept. 24 as planned, after a federal judge temporarily blocked its enforcement.

The judge on Friday morning granted a temporary injunction of the law, essentially putting the law on hold while a court case challenging it plays out.

The law would prohibit video recording of police officers within eight feet of where “law enforcement activity” is happening and if a person does not stop after being told to, they could face a class 3 misdemeanor and up to 30 days in jail.

================

Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich and Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell, who were named in the suit, both said last week that they would not defend the law in court.

The judge on Friday gave any other officials wishing to defend the law a week to step up and do so. It’s rare but not unheard of, Kelly said, to be involved in a lawsuit that no one is willing to defend.

“It’s not an automatic win,” he said. “The court still has to consider the argument and make its ruling based on what the law is.”

https://www.azmirror.com/blog/judge...law-that-would-bar-video-recording-of-police/

 

[Boriqua]

I remember reading about this law when it was proposed. While I am not a " the police can do no wrong" type of guy it seems perfectly reasonable to me that if I were a cop trying to arrest someone or control a scene that having 5 jackwads within 8 ft waving phones around would be a potentially dangerous situation and just down right annoying. 8 ft aint shit and with outstretched arm your firmly in my personal space. I think the law is reasonable.

 

[tunnug]

I agree with Boriqua but I believe the problem is that it's not 8' away from the cops, it's 8' from what the cops determine is the "Law Enforcement Activity Area" which is at the discration of the cops, depending on the attitude of the cop in charge it could put you 1/2 a block away.

 

[Doc]

If they don’t like it, put up the tape.

A camera doesn’t create an unsafe environment…..unless you are trying to hide something.

Slippery slope.

The more cameras the better.

 

[Boriqua]

If they don’t like it, put up the tape.

A camera doesn’t create an unsafe environment…..unless you are trying to hide something.

Slippery slope.

The more cameras the better.

You cant stop to put up tape if you are actively taking someone to the ground or trying to make an arrest and I just dont think a cop should have to trip over someone wanting to earn internet points with a youtube video.

Now ... I wasnt aware of what Tunnug posted

" it's 8' from what the cops determine is the "Law Enforcement Activity Area" which is at the discration of the cops"

That is indeed bullshit. Shouldnt be able to make up the 8' rule as it suits you.

 

[TheAccountant]

I agree with Boriqua but I believe the problem is that it's not 8' away from the cops, it's 8' from what the cops determine is the "Law Enforcement Activity Area" which is at the discration of the cops, depending on the attitude of the cop in charge it could put you 1/2 a block away.

Where did you get that from?

 

[tunnug]

I don't have the source but when the law was first passed I remember reading that and thinking that was just wrong, I'll see if I can find it.
Edit; if you click on the article above (AZ mirror) they quote it.

 

[Suck My Glock]

Tunnug is right. I also recall reading about it where the cops themselves were not arguing against being filmed per se, but that their concerns were the fools who would run right in to a melee in progress and be sticking their phone literally in their faces and by such close physical proximity were actually hampering legitimate duties. It was THAT sort or asinine conduct they were trying to prevent. When they had previously arrested such people for interfering, they would scream 1st Amendment rights were being violated, etc. I believe all the cops and legislators were seeking to do was find a proper legal framework to regulate these worst examples.

But it looks like they just weren't careful enough in how they crafted the law and even the judges were worried it could be misapplied.

 

[TheAccountant]

I don't have the source but when the law was first passed I remember reading that and thinking that was just wrong, I'll see if I can find it.
Edit; if you click on the article above (AZ mirror) they quote it.

They quote the language in the bill, which is Law Enforcement Activity, and is defined. My question is where did you come with this “area” that can be set by a cop depending on his attitude?

A. It is unlawful for a person to knowingly make a video recording of law enforcement activity if the person making the video recording is within eight feet of where the person knows or reasonably should know that law enforcement activity is occurring, either receives or has previously received a verbal warning from a law enforcement officer that the person is prohibited from making a video recording of a law enforcement activity within eight feet of the activity and continues to make a video recording of the law enforcement activity within eight feet of the activity. if the law enforcement activity is occurring in an enclosed structure that is on private property, a person who is authorized to be on the private property may make a video recording of the activity from an adjacent room or area that is less than eight feet away from where the activity is occurring, unless a law enforcement officer determines that the person is interferinG in the law enforcement activity or that it is not safe to be in the area and orders the person to leave the area.
B. Notwithstanding subsection A of this section, a person who is the subject of police contact may record the encounter if the person is not interfering with lawful police actions, including searching, handcuffing or administering a field sobriety test. The occupants of a vehicle that is the subject of a police stop may record the encounter if the occupants are not interfering with lawful police actions.
C. This section does not establish a right or authorize any person to make a video recording of law enforcement activity.
D. A violation of this section is a class 3 misdemeanor.
E. For the purposes of this section, "law enforcement activity" means any of the following:
1. Questioning a suspicious person.
2. Conducting an arrest, issuing a summons or enforcing the law.
3. Handling an emotionally disturbed or disorderly person who is exhibiting abnormal behavior.
A.R.S. § 13-3732

Added by L. 2022, ch. 376,s. 1, eff. 9/23/2022.

 

[Boriqua]

I don't have the source but when the law was first passed I remember reading that and thinking that was just wrong, I'll see if I can find it.
Edit; if you click on the article above (AZ mirror) they quote it.

unless a law enforcement officer determines that the person is interferinG in the law enforcement activity or that it is not safe to be in the area and orders the person to leave the area.

I am pretty well on the side of the cops on this one but I think what I quoted Validates Tunnug's assertion that it could be left up to the officers discretion.

From your post

unless a law enforcement officer determines that the person is interferinG in the law enforcement activity or that it is not safe to be in the area and orders the person to leave the area.

Now there may be reasons that an Officer might deem an "area" unsafe. Active shooter, guy held up in a house with a firearm and more but .. the language is left intentionally as up to officer discretion and as such can be abused.

 

[TheAccountant]

That part is the exception to the exception for the interior of a structure on private property.

 

[Boriqua]

That part is the exception to the exception for the interior of a structure on private property.

It very well may be and that may be how it was intended but .. it doesnt read that way. It reads open discretion without qualifications. The police department being manned by a cross section of your populace means .. that language needs to be tightened up or it will get abused by someone.

 

[TheAccountant]

if the law enforcement activity is occurring in an enclosed structure that is on private property, a person who is authorized to be on the private property may make a video recording of the activity from an adjacent room or area that is less than eight feet away from where the activity is occurring, unless a law enforcement officer determines that the person is interferinG in the law enforcement activity or that it is not safe to be in the area and orders the person to leave the area.

It’s all one sentence. I don’t know that the English language allows for any other interpretation.