> If you're the subject of activity, e.g. they deem you as a suspicious person and move towards you, you may record.
You may record, but you will not be able to after they handcuff you. So, they'll claim they were establishing a perimeter for the initial activity, that you refused to move away or stop filming from that perimeter, making your recording up to that point illegal, and then they'll detain you for this offense, handcuffing you to prevent you from filming.
Or they'll just take your phone under civil asset forfeiture laws, as it was involved in illegal activity (filming a police officer from too close by).
That would be a pretty extreme escalation of civil asset forfeiture. I understand that you distrust the police. You have reason to. But resorting to hyperbole diminishes your argument.
Arizona has somewhat decent civil forfeiture protections: civil forfeiture laws require a crime to take place for permanent forfeiture.
So this law puts the wheels in motion for lawful seizure of these phones.
You won't find much recent prior seizures in Arizona because Arizona cops can't fulfill a lawful seizure without a crime, and prior to now recording a public official performing their duty was basically never a criminal act.
You may record, but you will not be able to after they handcuff you. So, they'll claim they were establishing a perimeter for the initial activity, that you refused to move away or stop filming from that perimeter, making your recording up to that point illegal, and then they'll detain you for this offense, handcuffing you to prevent you from filming.
Or they'll just take your phone under civil asset forfeiture laws, as it was involved in illegal activity (filming a police officer from too close by).