Critics of a new Louisiana law, which makes it a crime to approach within 25 feet (7.6 meters) of a police officer under certain circumstances, fear that the measure could hinder the public’s ability to film officers — a tool that has increasingly been used to hold police accountable.
Under the law, anyone who is convicted of “knowingly or intentionally” approaching an officer, who is “lawfully engaged in the execution of his official duties,” and after being ordered to “stop approaching or retreat” faces up to a $500 fine, up to 60 days in jail or both. The law was signed by Gov. Jeff Landry, a Republican, Tuesday and goes into effect Aug. 1.
How close do you need to be to take cell phone video of police without being a distraction?
25 feet feels a bit much, but understandable. I can certainly record people 25 feet away with very good detail.
However, does that radius expand if a second cop gets in between and starts walking your way? That sounds like an entrapment issue.
Like they’re gonna care how far you really were.
I didn’t approach, he ran at me!
“It’s comin’ right for us!”
It’s far enough that recording clear video in darker settings would be harder since most zoom lenses suck in low light. Audio would be harder to pickup as well.
It doesn’t matter whether you’re a distraction. The First Amendment allows you to be a distraction. It’s been your right for the last 250 years to be a distraction.
But I’m trying to understand why you think this is understandable. To me, it’s understandable if you’re a cop trying to cover up your own illegal actions. If you’re 25 ft away, you cannot read the cop’s name tag, and if you ask them their name they will pretend not to hear you, so it’s harder to hold them accountable if you observe them doing something wrong. Similarly, if a cop is trying to plant evidence, you really want to have higher resolution video. Something grainy is not as useful in court.
Remember what laws are already on the books. Then try to tell yourself a story about why those laws aren’t good enough. If you physically interfere with an officer, or if you threaten to do anything physical to them, they already have the authority to arrest you for it. So if you think this new law is necessary, what precise behavior is it that you think is preventing cops from doing their jobs that wasn’t already illegal?
Obviously, if shit goes down and people whip out cell phones, it doesn’t magically turn everyone into guerrilla cinematographers bumping elbows with police to get the best angle. So if not 25 feet, what would you say is a respectable buffer zone between bystander and interfering?
If the wording in this article is correct, the radius would stay the same. It talks about approaching officers, not being approached by officers. If they close the gap, that’s on them.
The point of the Arizona law is to prevent you from recording your own encounter with an officer. You can’t ask an officer to stand 25 feet away from your car after being pulled over.
This needs to be challenged with the “one-party consent” law that allows for both parties of a phone conversation to record if one is recording. If I’m being recorded, I should maintain the right to record.
Interesting take. I didn’t read it that way. If you are the epicenter, you would always be withing the 25’ circle. Hmmm
Edit: based on the article, it doesn’t sound like this would apply. The law mentions approaching an officer, implying the bystander began away from but on a vector moving towards the location.
But I’m no lawyer.
25 feet is far enough to prevent most voices that aren’t yelling from being recorded. Any sidewalk next to an officer pulling a car over is restricted, as well as 2 lanes of road. A bailiff restricts most the courtroom. Jails are essentially fucked for incarcerated. Any cop directing traffic could choose any car to fuck over. Be careful at any sporting event where a drunk may get removed.