Lawsuit: New Arizona Law Criminalizing Filming Police Within 8 Feet Violates First Amendment
The lawsuit argues the new law will chill protected First Amendment activities and keep media and the public from holding police accountable.
![An image of a TV camera filming police in riot gear An image of a TV camera filming police in riot gear | Wellphotos | Dreamstime.com | Illustration: Lex Villena | Reason](https://d2eehagpk5cl65.cloudfront.net/img/c800x450-w800-q80/uploads/2022/07/arizona-record-police-800x450.jpg)
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Arizona and multiple media organizations have filed a First Amendment lawsuit seeking to overturn a new law in Arizona that makes it a crime to film within eight feet of police.
The law, passed earlier this year, makes it a misdemeanor offense to continue filming police activity from within eight feet of an officer after receiving a verbal warning. The federal lawsuit, filed Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, says that law "creates an unprecedented and facially unconstitutional content-based restriction on speech about an important governmental function."
There are exceptions for filming the police in a private residence, during a traffic stop, and if the person filming is the subject of the police encounter. But the law qualifies those exceptions, saying they apply only if the person recording is "not interfering with lawful police actions" or "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."
The law, the suit says, is too broad and vague, and it will have a chilling effect on the public and news organizations, especially when trying to record police activity in crowds, during protests, or on narrow sidewalks.
"We have a right to hold police officers accountable by recording their activities in public," Esha Bhandari, deputy director of the ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, said in a press release. "Arizona's law will prevent people from engaging in recording that doesn't interfere with police activity, and it will suppress the reporting and advocacy that results from video evidence of police misconduct. The First Amendment does not permit that outcome."
The right to film the police has been upheld by multiple federal appeals courts as a core First Amendment activity. In July, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a Colorado police officer did not have qualified immunity from a lawsuit alleging that he illegally tried to stop a man from filming a DUI traffic stop. The court ruled that a reasonable officer would have known that he or she was interfering with protected First Amendment activity.
However, that hasn't stopped police from threatening or detaining people who record them, nor has it stopped legislators from proposing restrictions on the public's ability to film the police.
The bill's sponsor, state Rep. John Kavanagh (R–Fountain Hills), wrote in a March USA Today op-ed that he introduced it "because there are groups hostile to the police that follow them around to videotape police incidents, and they get dangerously close to potentially violent encounters."
"I can think of no reason why any responsible person would need to come closer than 8 feet to a police officer engaged in a hostile or potentially hostile encounter," Kavanagh wrote. "Such an approach is unreasonable, unnecessary and unsafe, and should be made illegal.
In addition to Arizona, the South Carolina and Florida legislatures have also introduced bills over the past two years to restrict the ability to film the police.
Other plaintiffs in the lawsuit include the Arizona Broadcasters Association, Arizona Newspapers Association, and the National Press Photographers Association.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I'll be curious to see how this plays out. I can understand the too vague argument, but otherwise this seems to fit reasonably into time, place, manner restrictions. I'll be curious to see why I'm wrong.
Even time/place/manner restrictions must be narrowly tailored to serve a significant (and non-pretextual) government interest. This law prohibits recording within 8 feet in the interest of officer safety but does not (and realistically cannot) prohibit many other activities which could occur within 8 feet. The exceptions to the law recognize some practical realities but they also undercut the claim that the law is appropriately tailored.
I am creating eighty North American nation greenbacks per-hr. to finish some web services from home. I actually have not ever thought adore it would even realisable but (any-07) my friend mate got $27k solely in four weeks simply doing this best assignment and conjointly she convinced Maine to avail. Look further details going this web-page.
.
---------->>> https://www.bitlylinks.com/NOHcbZIFu
I can see why police need space to work and would want a law to keep gawkers outside an 8 foot perimeter for safety reasons.
But whether those people are recording video and audio is completely irrelevant. If you can see something from where you legally are, you should have every right to record your memories for your own personal security.
"...this seems to fit reasonably into time, place, manner restrictions."
Yeah, how so fascist?
"I'll be curious to see why I'm wrong."
Don't be. Same as all the other times you're wrong. It's because you are a douche and a copsucker.
Why would anyone think the first amendment has more effect than the second?
I am making 80 dollars per hr. to complete some internet services from home. I have not ever thought like it would even achievable however my confidant mate got $13k only in four weeks easily doing this best assignment and also she convinced me to avail. Look extra details
going this web-page.. https://incomebuzz7.blogspot.com/
Taking videos of the police is dangerous. It's dangerous to their reputations, dangerous to the budgets of the departments that employ them, and sometimes dangerous to their employment. Unfortunately it is not dangerous to their freedom, being that criminal cops rarely see consequences other than paid vacations.
Get a grip.
*Walks towards Agammamon*
"Walk away sir!"
*increases pace*
"Stop recording! You're too close!"
*slam bam smash*
"Stop resisting!"
Poor sarc.
So you didn't read the law and are using argumentation from ignorance as usual.
That’s our sarcasmic!
""I can think of no reason why any responsible person would need to come closer than 8 feet to a police officer engaged in a hostile or potentially hostile encounter," Kavanagh wrote. "Such an approach is unreasonable, unnecessary and unsafe, and should be made illegal."
I kind of agree with this guy, actually. I think 8 feet is a reasonable buffer - I certainly wouldn't want to be closer than 8 feet to an officer I'm filming, in an incident I'm not involved in directly. I'm not sure it needs to be made illegal per se, perhaps just 'unprotected'.
I am glad for one to know I'm not a threat if I put a camera 3 inches from someone's face.
This is a safety issue. What are you losing from filming 8 ft away? The law also has exceptions for the people that are directly interacting with cops. They can film. If you are pulled over you can be filmed.
If you are a spectator you can't get within 8 feet in order to maintain safety. How many cops have been shot this year? 8 feet seems a reasonable compromise.
As an activist you lose some ability to interfere with police while claiming to do reporting. You're still close enough to get good video of the interaction and you're exempt as the object of the interaction up to the point where filming directly impedes arrest. At this point they're indicating their right superceded all else, kind of like demanding my right to freedom of movement allows me to drive on the sidewalk.
Is it a safety issue though? How many cops have been injured by someone recording (or claiming to be recording) an incident at less than 8 feet?
Of course if the body cams weren’t able to be turned off and immediately uploaded to a public cloud server, some of this issue might go away.
If a cop is wrestling with some scumbag, who, I can tell you from experience, is trying his hardest to avoid being held responsible for his actions, and he sees someone approaching, his attention is distracted by the possibility that he's going to have someone else to deal with.
That puts the cop at risk, because the distraction can allow the scumbag to get an advantage.
8 feet seems about right.
What I want to see is all those videos, taken by "citizen journalists", have to be played to the public IN THEIR ENTIRETY, not the ten seconds that make the situation seem worse than it is for one side, while ignoring what led to the conflict in the first place.
“What I want to see is all those videos, taken by "citizen journalists", have to be played to the public IN THEIR ENTIRETY”
Oh I absolutely agree with that. So many times the context gets left out on purpose to push the narrative.
Now all a cop has to do is approach someone who is recording them, close the 8 foot gap, and guess what you're getting a beat down before getting arrested.
Read the law first.
I did. Presumably, so did the ACLU. Did you?
Nothing in the wording of that law prevents an officer from closing on the person making the recording and claiming that the officer's actions still constitute a "law enforcement activity". That makes the recording legal or illegal solely based on the officer's discretionary movements toward the person doing the recording.
It actually exempts the person interacting with the officer from the 8 foot rule. If the cop is approaching you he is interacting with you. The debate on this partner the law covered that issue or at least tried to.
By that definition, the 8 foot rule becomes unenforceable as to anyone. I doubt you will find any court willing to support that interpretation since it would violate the rule of surplusage.
>>makes it a crime to film within eight feet of police
vague *and* ambiguous.
Who uses film?
if I point a device at a cop but not push record am I subject to beating? how does he know what act I am committing?
IT MIGHT BE A GUN!
If the law forbade filming police activity within 30 feet, that would be a 1st Amendment issue. That's half of a typical suburban lot frontage or the length of two compact SUVs.
But, 8 feet is pretty close. All you need is several officers trying to subdue a perp, and then the perp's spouse, parent, sibling, or friend jumps in, trying to get the officers to let go. That's a recipe for some by-stander, trying to be a do-gooder, getting hurt. So who gets sued? The perp? The person trying to get the officers to let go? No, it will be the police department, with the deep pockets of the taxpayers.
You can't sue an officer who hurts you directly because of (un)qualified immunity. And you think you could sue for indirect harms? That would be funny if it weren't so sad.
If a bystander gets hurt, you might be able to sue the criminal even if the debt might be uncollectable. You have no hope suing the police regardless of why you were close enough to get hurt.
You know if you're 9 feet away they're going to move toward you so that they can take you down. Exactly like when they deliberately fling a leg out in front of a fleeing car so that they can open up on it and claim self defense.
If they move towards you they are interacting with you and the 8 foot requirement becomes moot. It is part of the exemptions in the law.
See above. I do not believe any court will support that interpretation since it makes the entirety of the 8 foot rule a legislative surplusage.
All you shit posters were all for the 6 ft. covid rule because that was about right and following the non-existent science, amirite? How about getting close enough to cops to record their audio bullshit? How about making uncensored body cams open to the public then? Yeah, that's what I thought.
Shame on you, Jesse.
The law is not unreasonable at first glance, but I don't like the idea that in a closed space, less than 8 feet away. video recording is an offence if the LEO determines that the person is interfering. That should be for a jury to determine, else the LEO has too much power.
Also, saying that the law does not establish the right is unnecessary. The right is pre-existing.
I understand that there are situations where gawkers with cell phone cameras can pose danger to people and potentially destroy evidence.
However the problem is not the camera, but rather that fact that the person is too close to the scene. The law focusing on pictures invokes conspiracies of a coverup.
A better law would be to say that it is against the way to go past a police cordon at a crime scene. Police should be filmed as a sort of 2nd amendment right to protect ourselves from corrupt officers.
At the same time we need to understand that officers are also human and do have lapses in judgement at times. They should be held to a higher standard due to the level of authorized violence they are permitted by society to utilize.
Citizens need to place themselves into the shoes of the officer and honestly assess how they would react in the same situation. Often citizens take advantage of information that was collected hours and hays after the fact and not on the information that the officer had during the 10 or 20 seconds.
Like I said we must hold officers to a higher standard, but not to an impossible standard.
no way a cop is gonna use the 8 Foot Rule to fuck with someone 20 feet away... because when cops break the law there's a robust tradition in this country for holding them accountable... move along, nothing to see here!
"Lawsuit: New Arizona Law Criminalizing Filming Police Within 8 Feet Violates First Amendment"
And gun control laws violate the second.
And asset forfeiture violates the fourth.
So what's your point?