I appreciate what I assume is a good faith attempt to read this law, but the law isn't about giving the officers room to safely operate. If that were the case, it would not cite _recording the officers_ as the illegal action, it would just define a minimum perimeter of non-interference.
> However, giving officers room to do their job is not “very strange” nor is the premise “ridiculous.” Indeed, moving bystanders back to a reasonable distance might reduce tension and the likelihood of misbehavior
As the law is written and the language of the law specifically acting on _making a video recording_, and nothing else:
IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON TO KNOWINGLY MAKE A VIDEO RECORDING
7 OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY IF THE PERSON MAKING THE VIDEO RECORDING IS
8 WITHIN EIGHT FEET OF WHERE THE PERSON KNOWS OR REASONABLY SHOULD KNOW THAT
9 LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY IS OCCURRING,
If this was about officer safety to operate, then it would just define it as such, but it goes out of its way to specifically forbid recording.
So I can do the following actions which are certainly disruptive to the police making an arrest without violating this law:
- Stop for a smoke next to an officer (presuming I am in one of the allowed places for smoking)
- Make out with someone in a publicly respectable way
- Busking of any kind
- Rollerskate/Skateboard as long as I am practicing reasonable safety
I think it's not easily contestable that these actions are _more_ disruptive to the police being engaged in an arrest, but the law has no concern about them as the focus of the law is exclusively recording. Other laws regarding arrests don't mention such a distance or rights for the officers. The point here is not some desire to interfere with arrests, it's that the premise of your statement that it's about officer safety and ability to perform doesn't pass scrutiny against the text of the law and other situations that would fall under the same concern, which are allowed.
I don't see a justification for this law except to allow police the right to fine/jail people recording them.
Edit: It may be suggested that laws should be concise and specific, and to a point I agree. However, such conciseness also means that the specific action meant to be prevented is much more clear. So I must stress, that even if the law is concise, this means that the focus is not on safety for police and bystanders, but specifically on recording the police. I'm not sure there is a logical interpretation any other way to suggest it's about safety to operate, because if it is, then the law is no longer concise and specific, it requires fairly roundabout inference to reach the spirit of the law.
> However, giving officers room to do their job is not “very strange” nor is the premise “ridiculous.” Indeed, moving bystanders back to a reasonable distance might reduce tension and the likelihood of misbehavior
As the law is written and the language of the law specifically acting on _making a video recording_, and nothing else:
IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON TO KNOWINGLY MAKE A VIDEO RECORDING 7 OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY IF THE PERSON MAKING THE VIDEO RECORDING IS 8 WITHIN EIGHT FEET OF WHERE THE PERSON KNOWS OR REASONABLY SHOULD KNOW THAT 9 LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY IS OCCURRING,
https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/HB2319S.pdf
If this was about officer safety to operate, then it would just define it as such, but it goes out of its way to specifically forbid recording.
So I can do the following actions which are certainly disruptive to the police making an arrest without violating this law:
- Stop for a smoke next to an officer (presuming I am in one of the allowed places for smoking)
- Make out with someone in a publicly respectable way
- Busking of any kind
- Rollerskate/Skateboard as long as I am practicing reasonable safety
I think it's not easily contestable that these actions are _more_ disruptive to the police being engaged in an arrest, but the law has no concern about them as the focus of the law is exclusively recording. Other laws regarding arrests don't mention such a distance or rights for the officers. The point here is not some desire to interfere with arrests, it's that the premise of your statement that it's about officer safety and ability to perform doesn't pass scrutiny against the text of the law and other situations that would fall under the same concern, which are allowed.
I don't see a justification for this law except to allow police the right to fine/jail people recording them.
Edit: It may be suggested that laws should be concise and specific, and to a point I agree. However, such conciseness also means that the specific action meant to be prevented is much more clear. So I must stress, that even if the law is concise, this means that the focus is not on safety for police and bystanders, but specifically on recording the police. I'm not sure there is a logical interpretation any other way to suggest it's about safety to operate, because if it is, then the law is no longer concise and specific, it requires fairly roundabout inference to reach the spirit of the law.