Is Arizona's New Police Recording Law Constitutional? 

If a officer was beating the hell out of me I would want someone to video it. God forbid

The statute is about bystanders--persons not "the subject of police contact"--injecting themselves into "law enforcement activity" and making situations more dangerous. Recently, a primary reason for this interference is to record interactions. The statute requires people recording to stand a paltry 8 feet away, which in no meaningful way impairs a bystander's ability to record; the right-to-record is barely implicated by this statute. The real question is whether police can lawfully set an 8-foot perimeter during an active investigation. If yes, then the statute is obviously constitutional. If no, then the prerogative of police agencies to conduct investigations must, by logical necessity, become significantly more restrictive going forward. This case seems really disingenuous and has dangerous implications if Ms. Gervasi's position prevails.

No can't do this the cops would just walk towards you and then arrest you. It will no doubt be abused

Why the prohibition from live streaming ? Is it put in-place to prohibit, (suspected, alleged) criminals from seeing operational police activity as in active shooter, kidnapping or other serious active crimes “live” so that the suspect cannot use that information to evade and or counter the police ? This would make sense as this could endanger the police and or other innocent individuals. Was this put into place for these reasons and is it spelled out in the bill ? I understand the Time, Place & Manner exceptions, why would not this apply here as well, the inclusion of the 8 feet seems to fit within these exceptions. Where would the confidential informant possibly come into this as well, seems TP&M in play here as well. The approach and or movement of the officer by Alexa is a good point; the 8 feet can then be a continuous movement issue. Thank you for the debate, this is how it should work, debate & open discussion with a narrator. *I would have like to been in the live debate, I did not receive the notification of this discussion. Was my free speech chilled by RU-vid, mmmmm.

they were abusing this unconstitutional piece of legislation before it was even written. hilarious that the man could say with straight face that he sees no way in which it could be abused. either a liar or blind.

Maybury v Madison All laws which are repugnant to the constitution, are null and void" As Law Enforcement, you swear an Oath to uphold and defend the constitution. Here lies the problem. I have not met a single cop who knows the 5 points of the 1st Amendment. The issue is directly on Police Academy and the Officers own integrity. They where not taught the highest laws of the land. And never bothered to learn. And if i am wrong, and they where- then guess what the 2nd amendment is for? Not hunting. Its for elimination of tyranny.

Too many times we have seen leo maliciously cause emotionally, physical and monetary harm to those who are quietly standing back recording. Leo will stop what they are doing just to go up to the person filming to exert their power and claim the person is interfering. The law in question is overly vague. Setting a distance within reason, which is subject to interpretation, is fine but is the 8 foot a constant distance or a subjective distance. Leo move while doing their job so is a person supposed to attach a 8 foot barrier around themselves to maintain this imagination 8 foot distance. Their are already laws on the books stating one can not interfere or obstruct but their are also laws on the books that state filming is not interfering or obstructing. We see leo disregard laws on filming all the time and arrest someone for interfering or obstructing only to have the charges thrown out. Which brings me back to my first statement of maliciously causing harm to a person.