Imagine your desk job typing away at your computer. Now imagine we took away your spellcheck and you had to type all of your forms perfectly 100% the very first time and we put a gun to your head and put you under extreme pressure and expected you to be absolutely flawless 100% of the time at all times with the camera to record your every movement in an army of lawyers to look for tiny little, miss steps in the thousand pages of procedures and SOP you’re supposed to follow to the letter, oh, and then we get combative people to come and go in your office, throwing insults, and potentially trying to shoot you while you’re doing your job. Is that something that you would want to do? Obviously we want to hold the police accountable to do a good job, but the idea that the cops are the only people who are supposed to be 195% perfect ( substitute any mathematically impossible number you want here ) at all times… it’s just absurd. We don’t hold anyone else in society to that standard not even brain surgeons.
No one that I know performs perfectly at all times, but we can and do expect that everyone, even police officers and brain surgeons, perform within the legal confines of our laws, and we hope they perform within the ethical restraints of their given professions as well.
@@Matt-yg8ub You are absolutely correct. There are far more members of the public who act like a-holes and then are surprised when the police come down on them than there are bad police officers.
The politicians who sponsored and voted for this law should have been forced to defend their law in court. And have it broadcast on TV so people can see who they voted for.
Cops: "if you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to fear from our cameras everywhere..." Also cops: "how dare you point a camera at us, you make us fear for our lives..." 😡
@@barryfleming8488 these are regime rehearsals, they are trying to push the boundaries to see how many rights they can take away without the people protesting.
What is baffling is how our legislative representative's can draft, then have a majority vote in, and then have a governor sign a blatantly unconstitutional law. Thank you drafters of the constitution for having the forethought to make a checks and balances system to quell the government's unconstitutional violations [on their fellow citizenry].
I've also seen footage of people actually obstructing. This is why body cams are a must. F--- trust, verify, especially when humans are involved. If I were a cop, mine would be on AT ALL TIMES.
@@logicplague you have to these days, the public is your enemy, 100%. Obviously individual people can be well-meaning, but crowds are pretty much always out to get you when you’re a cop.
Back when I worked in Emergency medical services I responded frequently at night, was by myself, dealing with far more emotionally charged, violent, or risky situations than a speeding ticket, I was often filmed, interfered with, harassed, even assaulted. Never, not ever, not even once, did it ever cross my mind that I command other people, strip them of their constitutional rights, or use my fear or my concern for my safety to order other people around. Now I didn't have a gun on my hip, I didn't a have body armor, I didn't have mace, I didn't have cuffs, I didn't have a baton. I didn't have a badge, or a gang of other officers to call to come defend me. Most importantly I didn't have the training to defend myself, deescalate, or power to detain, arrest, or investigate. The idea that an officer who has all of these resources and many, many more would feel insecure, threatened or in any way concerned for their life in situations far, far more mild than what I dealt with every single day is so ludicrously absurd it is beyond mocking. If you feel scared. Get out of police. Because you have zero business whatsoever being an officer and you are going to get somebody killed over your incompetent feelings.
Former EMT here, the police must be held to a higher standard to qualify as law enforcement, like the guy said, only the abusive cops want cameras to be gone. Honest, fair minded police don’t worry about cameras, only the ones breaking laws have a problem with being recorded. Defunding police should be replaced with getting rid of the bad apples, much better results all around. 🤔🤔🤔😉😉
@@derrickbailey5167 It’s the police culture that has to change. They choose aggressive, conformist former jocks as the primary cop type and wonder why nothing changes. And any military background should disqualify someone from being a cop-it is the wrong mentality.
It means nothing. Humans who willingly choose to be "cops" do so because they have A-moral personality traits. Or in other words they are willing to actually kill you for the most unjust and pertty offences. FTP
If anyone is being abusive towards cops and interferes they should be arrested for interfering with a police officer investigation! Let a jury determine if that was the real reason! If it’s proven they are interfering they should be found guilty!
The cops in AZ have lost their minds over being recorded. Watch them tape off traffic stops to prevent being recorded, yes they have been recorded literally putting up crime scene tape at traffic stops because they don’t want a record of what they are doing, the DOJ can’t intervene soon enough.
@@Richard.Cabeza yup. Direct D has been watching them for awhile now. Anytime he shows up, they put up tape to prevent him from recording them breaking the law and violating rights. Mesa PD is SUPER CORRUPT!
as much as the idea seems fair, it also seems to encompass laws made when the consensus was majoritive. it feels like laws that get overturned in general have to be proved as unconstitutional as opposed to just inherently being overturned or modified. Am I understanding you correctly?
@@dah4x there is a very distinct difference between unconstitutional and laws repealed or redacted. Either way, those enforcing the laws on you should be informed to what they are doing, because as they say...ignorance of the law is no defense. This is the reason why we need to end qualified immunity. We need to hold the federal and state governments (on down to the county and local) accountable for the laws they are enforcing. It is an equal application of the law.
That law in Arizona was started to target first amendment auditors like DirectD and many others but he is the most in the limelight in AZ. They don’t want people using their rights, informing others of their rights, and so that when they violate the rights of anyone around an incident the cops can then continue to lie & make up evidence to unjustly prosecute innocent people who didn’t bow down to their perceived tyrannical authority of having more rights than the people that they swore an oath to protect/support/defend the constitution (our rights) against all threats foreign and domestic (this would be tyrannical officials throughout different levels of government & catching actual criminals who have legally committed a crime as defined by Blacks Law & not the cops feelings.).
When a police officer used the excuse that the camera operator is “distracting” him, I would suggest that the officer is not properly trained to carry a gun and interact with the public.
@@JP-gi7dw don't expect the sheep dogs to kill the sheep. That dog will be be put down. The sheep produce the money to feed the dogs and are much more important.
When k9s are easily distracted in performing their duties, they are pulled off duty and sent back thru obedience training. If they are found to need more than 2 retraining, they are pulled off the force and sent back to the pound.Same thing should apply to the human k9s.
Watch the Leeja Miller video on why police in the US are so bad. Her info on the ridiculously low amount of hours cops get trained for is quite insightful. And then they are turned loose with a gun and a bad attitude.
I know of one of the sponsors of this bill as I attend the legislature as a citizen. He is a retired police officer, I believe from New Jersey, and he’s always doing things like this, even though he knows it’s blatantly unconstitutional.
It confuses and aggravates me to the point of screaming, how some states have made it illegal to film public employees in the course of their job...... So we cannot document where our public money is going now????
@@rondolan6457 the bs term frauditor probably isn't going to gain you lots of friends. When the boots are kicking your guts out by out of control cops, nobody is going to have any sympathy
I don't think any one breaking the law wants a film at 11. Why would that also not apply to the police? The idea that you can break the law to enforce the law is based on what?
When they first started with the body cams a lot of officers where annoyed with them. So I asked a state trooper what he thought about it. What he said was: "Only BAD COPs don't like being recorded."
What type subject to is the idea that the public should have 24 seven, 365 access to every single word and deed any officer ever says or does it any time ever no matter what. Officers are fine with recording actual public contact, what they are not fine with is a body cam that you have to turn on at the beginning of your shift that cannot, for any reason be shut off during the entire shift meaning that they now have to go take a shit on camera and every single word they say in their eight hour shift is being recorded for public consumption. Imagine just driving around in a car for eight hours with a driving instructor and three lawyers in the backseat with the traffic manual looking for any possible way to find fault in anything you’re doing. Imagine having to signal exactly 150 feet before every turn, imagine having to wait the requisite three seconds after the vehicle passes to be able to make a right turn Imagine a technocrat shoved up your ass looking for any possible flaw in anything that you’ve ever done and then you’ll understand the Panopticon effect of the cops always being under surveillance by the public. Imagine your partner is going through a divorce but you can’t discuss it at all because every single word either of you says it’s public record and you know that his angry wife is going to pull that record and use it against him in court if you guys discuss the subject . Now imagine the department angle on this right now they have to record hundreds of thousands of hours of video and make it available to the public at no charge. You have to hire extra staff and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on server storage in order to make all of this ridiculous surveillance available to the public.
@@Matt-yg8ub 1) That's not how badge cams work. They are activated by the officer or an event that triggers it like sirens, or a gun being removed from the holster. 2) I have used dash cams, as many others do now a days, in my personal vehicle to protect me from the wrong doing of others. Some of them recorded 100% of the time I was driving. I even have security cameras at home, both inside and out. Those cameras are more likely to protect me than hurt me. 3) Family court doesnt care about evidence. If you are male you are screwed if you are female "believe all women" is the standard of evidence. 4) Police departments do charge for the recordings. That is if you can afford a lawyer to force them to give you a copy.
@@hxhdfjifzirstc894 Absolutely true. However with the "defund the police" nonsense going on the quality of law enforcement is going to decline across the board.
@@thorn3377 Sadly, this will be true! We will STILL be charged in taxes and fees to PAY for the police service they will NOT provide! If they choose to defund an essential service, we should ALL be given tax rebates!
I suspect they're worried about doxing. LEOs aren't exactly popular with the public and there are a lot of people out there who would take it upon themselves to look up an officer's personal info including address. I can see that as a valid concern.
Great points - I saw a video of someone filming their own traffic stop where they were detained and couldn’t move away who was arrested for the 8ft rule - it was absurd!
I've attended events, marches, demonstrations, protests, and parades ... where people filming were standing beside or even filming over the shoulder of, police officers... while simply "covering the event"... and nobody felt threatened and nobody complained and everyone went home safely. . The camera isn't the problem ... the problem is their unwillingness to be held accountable for their actions when they get it wrong and screw up.
Wait a minute, the Governor of AZ who swore an oath to the US Constitution and the LEO's who also swore an oath to the Constitution and requested that the legislators pass a law that was unconstitutional? I wonder if 18 USC 242 will be charged to any of the actors involved in the deprivation of rights?
Too much "Contempt for our Constitution" by those Sworn to Protect our Constitution. It is an Un-American Attitude... God Save Our Constitution from those that dishonor it.
All of the big departments in Arizona loved that law and are notorious for chasing filmers in order to bring charges against them. The law was also used against the people that encountered law enforcement that started filming for their own protection. A lot of Arizona departments don't have dash or body cameras as well. Whatever interactions filmed are all outside observers or victims of police overreach inside Arizona.
I have seen many videos in which the cops are not doing anything wrong and someone is carrying a camera and shouting insults at the cops. I saw one video in which a cop was helping a man whose car stalled and someone with a camera was shouting insults at the cops. This is living proof that the activists are filming stuff which is not government overreach.
@@marklutz95 That is not an activist. That is an agitator, a provocateur, an instigator, an IOU for a butt-kicking. A real activist is like a bird-watcher or a football lineman, observing, not interposing. In the strictest sense, anyone attempting to agitate, where the officer is attempting to deescalate, is indeed interfering, and is inciting disorderly conduct (notice the dodge, because disorderly conduct involves boisterous action; but words intended to elicit disorder, become incitement. Insults to the officer are not sufficient per se, but if the person the policeman is engaging, is made upset and uncooperative, then, we may have a charge.)
@@KilerReviews These guys think they have a constitutional right to stand anywhere they want on the public sidewalk regardless of how their behavior impacts anyone else. They think they have a constitutional right to tell witnesses not to cooperate. They think they have a constitutional right to demand that public employees respond instantly to their questions, meet with them without appointments, and do whatever it takes to make everything harder than it needs to be.
The legislators that vote yes, and executives that sign off, on laws deemed unconstitutional should be removed and banned from ever holding office again.
Too bad that will never happen because the corruption runs deep in a town or city that will even allow a law like this to be drawn up. It’s a blatant constitutional violation and the only reason they don’t want police being filmed is so the police can get away with more illegal activity.
Ummm, that's a pretty gray area and often requires courts to make a decision. Many courts uphold them thinking they are constitutional while others will strike them down believing they aren't. All laws should go through a review board of constitutional lawyers before being allowed to be voted on. Not sure if that is a requirement right now or not.
No, need to add a provision that any member of the legislature can ask the attorney general to review a bill and issue an opinion on whether it is constitutional or not. If the opinion says it is not, then if it is passed and successfully challenged, the salaries of the members who voted for it [and the governor if they didn't veto it] are docked by the state until any costs (salaries, etc. ) of defending this law are paid. I guarantee this will reduce the number of these blatantly unconstitutional laws being passed.
What an excellent piece of news. I first heard about that law while watching an actual video of a police stop in Arizona recorded by someone who was told by an officer (threatened, really, would be a better word) to put the camera down or else… I was stunned when he quoted this law, and I was so horrified by it that I didn’t really believe it was true until I looked it up. I wanted to just scream into a void, because I do t believe that 8 foot rule is arbitrary at all- it’s specifically designed so that people cannot record their **own** interactions with police. That’s what the law is intended for. There’s nothing more that the cops hate than some damn “disrespectful uppity citizen” who points a cell phone in their face. And I am just delighted beyond words that these arrogant bastards will now have to put up and shut the f up and deal with it. Imagine how this law could blatantly defile the 1st amendment? Think about a situation where the police a beating a demonstrator, and the media is catching it all on video. One of the cops notice that the media are present so they send an officer to stand exactly 7 feet away from the cameraman and demand he stop filming or he’ll be arrested. Horrifying. Anyway, what a great day. What a truly beautiful beautiful day. This news has absolutely just brightened my day.
One of the funniest things I've heard is the police telling someone not to film because they the police are filming. They get to edit, delete or do anything they want with the footage and can even deny it being seen.
My opinion is that this bill was specifically written as petty legistration against the youtuber Direct D out of Mesa Arizona. An activist fighting for police accountability.
He has managed to ruffle a few feathers, hasn't he? Maybe we should ask Steve to comment on the judge that has prohibited Chris from filming police officers while they are working?
Because artistic activist auditors like Clash with Bao and James Freeman were catching these guys left and right, and they were trying everything to keep them from filming them.
I’m at the point that if I see a cop with his knee on someone’s neck or I hear someone screaming help I’m stepping in. We all need to start stepping in. We will save more lives from the cops.
The only reason police don't want to be filmed is because they know they will get filmed and caught. This same thing has been tried over and over again, and its only the police who want it, because it protects them and makes it harder to hold them accountable.
Laws need passed to prohibit covering or muting the cameras. They already redact info before release so covering or muting the cameras is tampering with evidence
@@mattgayda2840 Nah there needs to be a law in every state that states this. All police officers with no exceptions must wear a body camera at all times while on duty, while in uniform, while in state issused vehicales, while working in the capacity of an officer regardless of who is being paid. This body camera must live stream at all times and must include a 24 hour buffer recorder to which an officer is not with in range of service. All police units must provide long range data hubs to offer additional service. The body camera must include a green light indicating that the camera is connected to live streaming and yellow if lost connection and red if there is a fault. If a camrea goes red the officer must stop their duty and report to tech service right away. Tech service is a 3rd party company that is bound by law and you are required to provided a full background and can have no connection to the police in your family close or not. This company is liable and responsible to maintaining these police recordings and the police are not allowed to enter the property/building except in secured building that is seperarte from the facility. ( like in a guard shack on the edge of the property. FOIA must be given with in 8 hours of request which you can do at any one of these places/ You can call the state 1 800 number, mail, text, email and type of communication. You can request anything. Each recording will be kept long term. Any officer who attempts, appears to, or obstruct any recording will be prosecuted for tampering with evidence. Everything is recorded. There are no exceptions to this. Keep in mind the police should be able to do their jobs in the public and there are no needs to be undercover and entrapping people. Police can still stake out a place while wearing their body camera, Police can still conduct raids with their comeras. Police can still question people with their camreas. There is no exception to this and any time a police officer is caught with out a camera on they can and will be fired. This should not affect their ability to do their job. I want this law to be passed in one state and adoptive by all states. While it sounds harsh yet they can conduct their jobs with camreas on at all times. People are going to say what about undercover police. Well unless you have a body camera on you can not act as a police officer. What about off duty police. Well that is it they are off duty and should not be getting involved at all. They should carry a body camera at all times if they want to get involved during their off hours. Acting in the capacity as an officer requires you go have a body camera at all times. So if you so up to a scene and do not have a body camera you must get and officer and tell them you name, badge number and the reason you are here and request a body camera and put it on in front of the officer then state the reason all over again for your own camera. This will not only prevent the police from abusing their rights it will also pur the public at rest because by law you must have a camera on and not having a camera will likely result in you being let go. The ability to get these live streaming recording with in 8 hours is the trust that the public needs. The 8 hours is enough time to have the 3rd party company scrub parts of the video such as bathroom breaks. On the camera you can tap a button which will place a marker in the recording and when you are done you can press it again. So like when you go to the bathroom you press it and when you finish you press it again. So when a request comes in they can see this mark go in a speed watch and listen to see if you are faking restroom break to talk on the phone then scrub that section of the video with a black out bathroom break with just enough of the boarder to show that you are not hiding it. Then you can mark when private information is used. Yet keep in mind almost everything the police have is public infromation and such information is subject to a hearing to be unredacted. No one in public can be censored and no one in public lobbies can be censored. Secured areas can be redacted and a hearing can be then done to remove the block. Once the police step out in to the public areas everything they do be it in public, in their unit is all up for grabs. All interactions are now public. There will be some other stuff that will need to be worked out. Yet overall that is the entire idea. If an when a law like this is passed and it will likely happen there are going to be a lot of people who quit and a lot of people fired over abuse of their jobs.
The good cops LIKE having body cameras. There are a lot of people that make up crap to try to get cops (that might bye investigating THEM) in trouble. But then there are always those that spoil it for everyone (usually bad cops).
This law would have protected our right to record, not limit it. We need a law stating a distance and 8 feet is more than anyone wanted to record from. Without this law AZ cops think they can push us back 50 feet, 100 feet or even 200 feet. If it was only unlawful to record from closer than 8 feet, their hands would be tied
@@jerrybushmanummmm no. This law allowed them to move people back to whatever distance they want. If you're staying there recording in a cop comes up to you then you would have been forced to move 8 ft away from that cop. If the cop continues to approach you you have to continue to move away from that cop in effect moving away from what you're trying to record.
@@napalmstickylikeglue I think a law that clarifies the amount of space that someone needs to give an officer for him to do his job is reasonable. I understand your concern about an officer violating the space and then charging you, that scenario would need to be addressed in some form.
That cops in Arizona routinely violate the law has NOTHING at all to do with not wanting to be filmed. They started drafting this law right around the same time that the DOJ started investigating AZ cops. Coincidence?
Mr Lehto you are on fire covering some of the most interesting and important court events. I have learned so much from your videos. Prompting me to read and learn more. Certain at a base level you are helping our nations civics. Many thanks
Maricopa is the locale gift that keeps on giving. Interference is a physical outward act, such as getting between a cop attempting to effectuate arrest and the subject of the arrest. Steve's example is spot on.
To all auditors: Keep fighting the good fight! Until these public servants realize integrity and accountability are values not to be feared, you are needed. Thank you for your service.
@@JonathanLedbetterame, some are moronic and just want YT clout, not to improve bad situations. I work private security and have a game I play with them, I call it, you can film but I can play my highly copyrighted Spotify playlist whilst reminding you that the site I work at owns the property all the way upto the road, not just the fence line so please remove yourself and let me laugh as the trucks driving past all day turn you into paste. But then also not in the US, here our police have body cameras that must be on when engaging with the public.
@@cgi2002 TBH your copyright trolling is more annoying and also largely ineffective. There are tools that can edit it out, and even a skilled video editor can cut around whatever Taylor Swift or Disney songs you use to try and disrupt their monetization. You're still giving them conflict anyway. In my mind, the best way to disarm them is to be overly friendly because that shit is boring to watch.
@@JonathanLedbetter oh i do that too, i'm excessively polite (technically its part of the job, the music is just to make their lives harder and is playing from the vehicle i'm using), i don't bother to ask why they are filming, i just ask them to "please leave the premises", which i nicely inform them actually go right upto the roadside, the fence is not the border of the property, its 15ft back from the border for safety reasons (there are some odd rules due to the nature of the site). Tbh usually tho we just ignore them entirely unless they are in the way of a work crew on the area outside the fenceline, which is more often than you'd think.
@@cgi2002 they may own up to the roadside but there is still an easement that they have every right to be on and not even police can legally remove them from it.
I can see a case to be made if you're in the officer's back pocket the whole time interfering with their job, but as long as you aren't making yourself part of the situation I see no problem. They should be recording themselves at all times, why ask a court to take my word when I can simply show them what happened?
@@logicplague Correct, but there are a lot of dumbasses who intentionally get involved just so they can post it online, then scream "1st Amendment" when they are told/made to get out of the way.
I'm glad that you explained it because, to me, staying a safe distance away from a cop doing their job is perfectly reasonable, but it has nothing to do with the camera. If cops need more detailed/stringent laws to stay safe and do their jobs, then that's got nothing to do with a camera.
*If you're there with a camera then you're usually filming what the police don't do, that's why they don't want a camera there so they can do what police usually do which is stomp all over the rights of just about everyone they encounter, abuse their authority, use excessive force and in some cases beat the living crap out of someone because they didn't get some action from their lady last night or just for the heck of it.*
That's why I think the arbitrary "don't get close to us, we're scared because it's dark" or whatever Steve mentioned as reasonable is not. I've seen police arrest people in their own yards under the same guise of safety for the officer. It's not our job to provide safety for the officer as fellow citizens, there's a bazillion videos of police leaving that dark night traffic stop to leave the suspect and accuse the person being relatively near them of violating their crime scene.
I have seen video of police getting twisted up about people recording them from anywhere between 10' to more than 50' saying the person/people were interfering, it's not really about the distance it's about them not wanting to be held accountable by citizens
I saw an Audit the Audit video where the cops were trying to get some person down from, I think it was a water tower? And the guy was filming them from probably a quarter mile away across an open field. They had to drive over to tell him he was too close and had to move back another quarter mile to where he couldn't see anything. If someone is actually physically getting in their way they'll arrest them for obstruction immediately, they just want to unconstitutionally punish people for filming them.
If they can't bully someone into stopping the filming, they'll often shine a very bright flashlight into the camera so as to interfere with it. IMO, that too is a violation of the camera owner's 1A rights, and should be the subject of a lawsuit.
Thank you USA Federal Courts for making the correct decision in this case. Steve, Again I want to say thank you for talking about all the differant things that happen in the courts here in the USA. I hope you keep making videos for many, many more years.
It's more like private companies want speed cameras and red light cameras. Private companies put out red light tickets and collected finea when red light cameras were still allowed in Texas.
The speed trap cameras and red light cameras are not usually due to the police, it is the political administrators looking to line their coffers with the money from the fines.
If one cop on his own *IN THE DARKNESS* is scary for the cop, then don't do it!!! Instead, always have TWO cops, then you will never be surprised by someone coming out of the darkness. HOW DIFFICULT IS THAT????? Sometimes, I think these cops are totally stupid.
@@snarkybuttcrack Steve is educating people about what are their rights, the last thing a LEO needs is someone who actually knows the bs at the roadside is actually bs and that the LEO is over stating their case and trying to conduct an action that is illegal, re the Video on the Kansas State Patrol's blatant attempts to violate the constitution through the use of illegal tactics to search vehicles. So by informing people through his channel when such cases are reported or reach the courts then people are empowered to know when they are stopped that the LEO is not within their rights and has in effect gone "Ultra Vires."
IMO, the main reason cops don't want you to record video is because it impedes their ability to get away with lying in court. That said, a camera is not a license to interfere. As Steve said, the camera should not make a difference. If you can stand in a spot without a camera, you should be able to stand there with a camera. Likewise, if you can't stand somewhere, having a camera doesn't give you special permission.
@@larryforeman7157 A person can still disseminate their experiences be it in written form, verbally, acted out, etc.. So with or without extra documenting tools on hand we all have press freedom.
A majority of this has to do with "Direct D" and others in the Phoenix area filming cops violating civil rights of people the cops stop and question. After all... it's harder for the cops to violate your rights when being filmed. They don't want to lose "Qualified Immunity" and get sued for violating someone's civil rights. The cops say they have body cams for this... problem is, they turn them off, mute conversations, etc, when they do stuff, so they don't get caught (as often). If you try to FOIA the video, they deny transparency, edit out, etc, and make it near impossible to get the video. The filming provides transparency and makes cops accountable for their actions.
It's all about the presence of the camera. I have seen many videos where the police start in on the guys with the cameras telling them that it's a "crime scene", but they let everyone else without a camera walk through the "crime scene". Cops are afraid of the cameras because it catches them violating peoples rights or violating the law.
I love watching your videos. I’m middle age, just finished paralegal degree, prepping for law school (getting kind of long in the tooth to go to law school, but what the hell…). I really enjoy how you break down these cases and situations, I find them endlessly fascinating. I had no idea I was a legal nerd until a few years ago. Legal thinking is calming medicine for my soul… it’s the weirdest thing.
Good luck! You're never too old. Henry Kissinger flew to China for some high level meetings & he's 100! I'm sure it wasn't to be fitted for his replacement parts 😅
I know a guy who went to law school and became an attorney in his early 50’s. He told me he’d gotten an associates as a young man and had to do all the prelim college stuff. Good on you for doing this in middle age.
@@ithinkaboutthings9052 Thanks, I appreciate all the support! I've done a lot of reflecting over the past 6 years I've been back in college (finishing 2nd degree now in my early 50s and prepping for the LSAT) over wishing I didn't party like a rock star my youth because I'm pretty sure I was more intelligent when I was younger (I might now have brain damage, boy was I stupid for being so smart). I'm hoping the high doses of B vitamins with fix things... I just keep carving new neural pathways... I better live to be at least 130 years old... bring on the life-extension therapies...
Congress as a whole needs a pay cut, and no retirement. But passing unconstitutional laws deserves immediate removal from office and jail time, as far as I’m concerned.
@@cbkqmomYes. Intentionally violating the constitution should come with swift, harsh, and permanent damages to the people doing it. There's a reason we didn't have these problems when hangings were held with useless politicians.
Jesus, when one man is enough to drive the corrupt to out themselves, you know that man is doing a great job holding the corrupt accountable, well done Direct D.
No one's a bigger supporter of law enforcement than I am, but I support this decision. We all benefit with more eyes, not less. And your description of an officer stepping closer and telling someone to stop, all the while encroaching on their space is spot on. I've seen it happen here on TH-cam multiple times a week. And didn't they pass something similar to this in Florida recently??
@@JonathanLedbetter That is what happened to me although coming from NYC the cops were always thugs making stuff up as they chose. CHP were always fair and professional. I have had zero LEO contact in the 20 years living in NC.
Why? Why do you reflexively “Support” the armed representatives of the government? Is your freedom such an abstraction that you can’t see that these are the jack boots who carry out the orders of the politicians? Help us understand this mentality.
Couple things: it wasn't 8 ft from an officer, it was 8ft from police action. And, more importantly, it stated in the bill that you have to have the officers permission to film at all
@mr, Unless the officer wants you to stay further away from him while he's conducting an investigation, camera or not you can't be walking up on a cop when he's trying to assess the situation
The law made it illegal in Arizona to knowingly video police officers 8 feet (2.5 meters) or closer without an officer’s permission. The police action could be 20 feet away and the police officer may want to control a scene by making you stay 8ft away from him or her. As Steve said, they can keep walking in front of you to make you stay 8ft away from them.
@@stclairstclairI've got a better idea: Train the officer to help people instead of hurt people. See, that way he'll be in the mindset of "good, this guy's helping make sure everone can know what really happened" instead of "I can't let this guy capture me breaking the law"
As you know, Steve, the Big Court settled this question years ago. I'm a retired cop and I have been assuming I'm recorded since 1992. If someone is recording too closely and gets in the way of officers or anyone for that matter doing their jobs, then charge with obstruction legal process or official duty. The recording law is too screwy.
"obstruction" is commonly regarded to be a physical act, not filming....that concept came from racist and psychotic morons trying to hide their crimes and misconducts
@@d.b.6240 , I would disagree with most cops having that attitude today. In the early 1990s, that was the case. Then, something heppened. When officers were falsely accused, the recordings came in very very handy. Cops started filing civil cases and making money when they were falsely accused, and actually began embracing the belt recorders, then the cameras. I know; I was there.
I totally agree with the logic. The fact that they state someone getting too close, 'WITH A CAMERA'. demonstrates that it's NOT about impeding their ability to do their job that is their concern, but rather their activities being documented.
8 feet seems reasonable; with that said you should be able to record without limits. It all boils down to money really and we know that. The recordings are starting to put a little bit of a squeeze on qualified immunity. More lawsuits, more money paid out. It is notoriously. Difficult to sue, law-enforcement. The cameras are making it easier.
So that would have basically made it illegal to film your own interactions with police. Just trying to limit accountability for police. Glad there is still some sanity in the system.
The law was trash and was rightfully overturned but if I remember correctly the law did allow you to film your own interactions with no distance restrictions.
There is that incident where they arrested that crazy FLDS guy for transporting his under aged wives in a trailer, the 2 that were over 18 wanted to film the interaction and the cops referenced this law to keep them from doing so, took their phones and piled them on the hood of a cop car.
I feel so validated! Maybe I should become a lawyer. Before this law was passed in Arizona, my first thought was, what does this have to do with a camera? Why would it matter whether I'm recording or not? If I'm "interfering" I'm "interfering". This was inevitable.
I fully believe the only job creation the GOP has done over the last two decades is attorneys to fight all the unconstitutional laws they like to ram through state legislatures.
This is great news and the judge who struck it down is a smart Judge (yes there are a few stupid ones) who actually used logic in his decisions. When this law came to be I was dumbfounded as to how it could be made and you exactly made all of my points in this video. Including the one Reg officer safety. I believe all officers should be in two man teams always. That way should someone come out of the dark behind one officer they have another officer positioned that has their back. Honest and good officers have nothing to fear from cameras. Only crooked ones.
I'm pretty sure stupid people don't get accepted into law school or any other decent institution. They are corrupt, not stupid. Less than 100 officers are feloniously killed yearly yet they kill several hundreds of civilians, many unarmed, & are rarely held accountable. We don't need more of them.
The problem is they're all criminals and they know it. Every time they have violated someone's rights or stood by when one of their colleagues did makes them an accessory at best. The "I'm just doing my job" and/or "I'm just following procedure/orders" defense didn't work for the nazis and shouldn't work for these jack booted thugs either.
Nobody fought for it, because the cops can just say you’re too close, beat the living crap out of you (or worse), drag your ass off to jail, and investigate themselves finding no wrongdoing. It’s time to level the playing field.
Interesting. I remember Illinois had a statute like this that was struck down and they kept enforcing it until a federal judge held a prosecutor in civil contempt. The 7th Circuit ended up affirming the injunction that was put in place. This was like 2011-12ish? Not sure how these statutes keep popping up.
Maryland had this until just a few years ago, they arrested a motorcycle rider with a go pro camera on his helmet at gunpoint! It was absurd and took 3-5 years to get finalized
Because none of them were prosecuted under 28USC 144 bias, and 18USC 241/242 deprivation of rights. Same reason cameras are banned from courtrooms except with specific written permission. Who watches the watchers?
@@PBVader the courtroom/courthouse issue is the next one auditors are going to have to start addressing. Another place that is extremely corrupt, shady, and lacking transparency. And a corrupt court can REALLY screw up someone's life.
Cop Unions and municipalities that would rather solve the lawsuit problem by infringing on the 1A rights of the People rather than actually discipline their police.
The public servents always get angry when an auditor shows up and deny access to public buildings. If they’d go along and allow the auditor access there’d be no content worth posting and auditing would end. It’s the egos of the public servants that keep it going.
First this was fought the correct way. In the courtroom not somewhere on the side of the road in an argument somebody getting arrested. Second first amendment auditors tend to film in areas where could be permissible or might not. I seen a recent video where a guy was filming kids outside of school well they played in a playground. Just because you can do something doesn't necessarily mean you should. As a parent, this would have made me nervous but the police can't question him they can't identify him. He could be breaking the law by not being allowed to be there, but they can't do anything because he didn't break the law by standing on a public sidewalk. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. If you want to challenge an ordnance about no filming in a post office. Then, take it to court, let a court decide if you can film in a post office. But don't argue with the police if you can or can't. Yes I can stand outside a school playground and film all day long but the only purpose I would do that if I was looking for a confrontation knowing somebody was going to call the police and police was going to come and question what I'm doing. That serves no purpose but to myself looking for a confrontation.
@@DaleStewart-mv4kc I will say that I have seen some 1A auditors push the limits on a few things, but too often have seen LEOs and other citizens fail to understand the law let alone know basic civics. Some people, including LEOs want to enforce feelings while actually violating the law. The courts have ruled that anything that can be seen in public can be photographed, filmed, and/or recorded. My favorite is outside of government buildings and you can get Google Earth Street view and other USGS products that show imagery of those areas. As for the USPS, I believe Poster 7 covers photography in post offices and it is allowed. Anyone worried about being filmed in public should look around next time your are at a bank, grocery store, Walmart, pretty much any government building, the DMV, on the highways or interstates and you will see cameras all over the place. One last note, try doing a Freedom of Information Act request from some of these places and see how long it takes and how often that information is denied.
@@DaleStewart-mv4kcxactly. First amendment auditors or "frauditors" are nothing more than cash for confrontation channels. They make a good living getting in unsuspecting people's faces and when they ask what the frauditor is doing they talk to person like shit. Some of them are really disgusting individuals. They are not fighting for rights they harass public servants to get a rise out of them and then cash in on TH-cam. There are far better ways to fight for rights and uphold laws than instigating and filming conflict with public servants. But that wouldn't be profitable.
@DaleStewart-mv4kc It sounds like you begrudgingly accept the school sidewalk situation, big respect for that. But where I disagree with you on is the "just take them to court to change laws" thing, which to my understanding is difficult if you don't have standing. I also disagree with "don't have an argument on the side of the road." Public sidewalks and roads are ancient public forums, no better place to spread an idea in a peaceful way. No sense in being overly litigious if a peaceful demonstration gets the point across. It's not the auditors' faults if the police want to escalate. That's victim blaming.
The cops didn’t fight this because 8 feet is way too close for them. They routinely tell people to stay back 20 or more feet. Now with no set distance, they are right back to having “discretion” to force people back as far as they want. It really is devious the way this went down.
One of the reasons I’d heard while in AZ was that it would make it illegal to record a traffic stop on a dash camera. I don’t know if it’s true, but it makes sense. There’s no way to have a dash camera more than 8’ away. If there isn’t anyone around to film what an officer is doing during a traffic stop it becomes your word against theirs.
have watched you for some time, it is hard for me to believe your an attorney because you are very likable, you do not appear to be arrogant etc. Keep up the great videos!
Direct D got really screwed over. The cops, DAs and judges that pushed his convictions need to be thrown in prison themselves, and Direct D's sentences need to be expunged and thrown out.
People need to get smarter, move a block away, out of sight and launch a small drone, not directly over the police. Film. A tiny drone of a few ounces is no threat.
Regarding traffic stop. You have likely also noticed the officer getting upset with the cameraman's location but he has no response to other people walking by, often even closer. They get triggered by the camera, not the location of the person.
To be fair, most people walking by just look while they keep walking… Most videos I see made by people recording police, or from police body cameras, show the third party with a camera also talking chit to the police and essentially harassing or interfering with the police office trying to do his job… I am all for recording police, especially when they are not following policy or acting beyond authority, but people should stand back and not argue… It is the job of the court to make determines of law, not people who watched a few videos on TH-cam and act like constitutional law experts…
@@EarlHayward Not so. Most auditors and cop watchers do not say anything to the cop until the cop addresses them. The cop watcher might try to inform the subject. "You don't have to let them search your car. Just tell them NO." and such. Most auditors and cop watchers know the laws much better than the cops. The cops confuse training and agency policy with the law. Ask a cop what a lawful order is? Most think it is anything they want you to do as long as it is not illegal. There are many things a cop can say but few things a cop can order you to do under threat of arrest. Cops don't even understand the limits of Terry v Ohio or Brown v Texas. They may know PA v Mimms but not Rodriguez v US or Delaware v Prouse. Hiibel v 6th Dist. They should know these court decisions. It is rare to find a cop who knows Turner v Driver. It is fun to watch Phil Turner set up ignorant cops.
So glad to hear this!! They can film us.. Doesn’t make sense to even argue this! EVER PERIOD. Who is to ever say someone in Public can’t do a basic equal interaction. They already carry guns. Now we can’t approach them to observe something that could be disputed.. publicly…. Ummm.. AZ, wouldn’t expect any less.. They would give someone homeless a ticket for being homeless..b
In the scenario Steve laid out about the officer fearing for his safety makes me laugh. Why should and officer be so fearful. I'm vacation in Italy and I make the comparison of how the police and carabiniari are dressed with a nice polo, tight slacks, a belt clip with a barreta, and maybe one extra clip... oh, and a cigarette. In the states the police are dressed like they are going into a war zone. 😂
The bill was sponsored by Sen. John Kavanagh an ex police officer. Police departments pushed for this bill bcuz in Arizona there are individuals and groups that go out and record the police. In many of the videos the cop watchers keep their distance and are silent. Occasionally they'll ask the person what's the reason for the stop, tell a driver suspected of dui they don't have to do a field sobriety test, or challenge the officers unlawful orders. Like many other police departments, Arizona has a long history of misconduct and brutality towards it residents.
When voters seek to educate themselves on the quality of incumbent politicians in office is there a database tracking how much legislation they have signed off on that has subsequently proven to be struck down by courts?
The greatest weapon to combating police abuse in the last decade has been cameras
Imagine your desk job typing away at your computer. Now imagine we took away your spellcheck and you had to type all of your forms perfectly 100% the very first time and we put a gun to your head and put you under extreme pressure and expected you to be absolutely flawless 100% of the time at all times with the camera to record your every movement in an army of lawyers to look for tiny little, miss steps in the thousand pages of procedures and SOP you’re supposed to follow to the letter, oh, and then we get combative people to come and go in your office, throwing insults, and potentially trying to shoot you while you’re doing your job. Is that something that you would want to do? Obviously we want to hold the police accountable to do a good job, but the idea that the cops are the only people who are supposed to be 195% perfect ( substitute any mathematically impossible number you want here ) at all times… it’s just absurd. We don’t hold anyone else in society to that standard not even brain surgeons.
No one that I know performs perfectly at all times, but we can and do expect that everyone, even police officers and brain surgeons, perform within the legal confines of our laws, and we hope they perform within the ethical restraints of their given professions as well.
@@Matt-yg8ub You are absolutely correct. There are far more members of the public who act like a-holes and then are surprised when the police come down on them than there are bad police officers.
The greatest weapon and deterrence has always been ACCOUNTABILITY.
Majority of police haven't had any accountability, ever.
It'd good this judge ruled right (let's name him), but its funny how they refuse to recognize the right to record themselves
The politicians who sponsored and voted for this law should have been forced to defend their law in court. And have it broadcast on TV so people can see who they voted for.
Cops: "if you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to fear from our cameras everywhere..." Also cops: "how dare you point a camera at us, you make us fear for our lives..." 😡
Steve clearly showed how it's not the camera that makes police fear for their lives in many cases.
@@vw8886Yep, many police see a black or brown person and just assume they are a threat that must be murdered
@@vw8886then who sought to have this law drafted?
@@barryfleming8488 these are regime rehearsals, they are trying to push the boundaries to see how many rights they can take away without the people protesting.
@@vw8886And yet there's many videos where the camera is at the heart of the issue... 🤔
Videoing cops is our only saviour from cops putting us in prison from the lies they tell.Good job.Thanks.
Why would they be so afraid of being filmed? If they’re not doing anything wrong, they have nothing to hide…right?
What is baffling is how our legislative representative's can draft, then have a majority vote in, and then have a governor sign a blatantly unconstitutional law. Thank you drafters of the constitution for having the forethought to make a checks and balances system to quell the government's unconstitutional violations [on their fellow citizenry].
"Vibrations?"
@@ptfd140 Nobody knows what it means, but it's provocative!
That's typical governemnt for you.
Where is the remedy against a corrupt judiciary? How does one compel a state Supreme court into constitutional compliance when they go astray?
@@dadsappThere's only one way to remove tyrants, and it's illegal by law, but mandated by the constitution.
"Shall not be infringed"
Phoenix, Mesa and Scottsdale are probably among the top ten best arguments for why private citizens with cameras are imperative.
ARRESTING PEOPLE FOR BEING ON THE SIDEWALK HALF MILE FROM THE INCIDENT. They love to go hands on. If we touched them like that it would be assault.
Arguably the most corrupt cops in the USA. Phoenix PD is under Federal investigation, unless it’s concluded already.
Who are the 🤡🤡 that gave power and consent to the sheep dogs?? GODS?? 😅😅
Don't forget Tucson, Tempe and Gilbert
From what I've seen I would add in Florida and Colorado.
Basically nowhere in the country is safe to be without quick access to record the police.
Cops have done that Steve, they step into your personal space, then claim you obstructed, they do it all the time.
Just remember if you don't move and they bump into you that's assault on an officer
I've also seen footage of people actually obstructing. This is why body cams are a must. F--- trust, verify, especially when humans are involved. If I were a cop, mine would be on AT ALL TIMES.
@@logicplague you have to these days, the public is your enemy, 100%. Obviously individual people can be well-meaning, but crowds are pretty much always out to get you when you’re a cop.
Until they lose their qualified immunity
@@logicplague and that's why you could never be a cop haha
Lawmakers that pushed this ridiculous bill should be held accountable and penalized!
You know how you penalize them? you don't vote for them the next time.
Kkk sponsored that bill
@@yozo3251I think gallows are a better idea.
Back when I worked in Emergency medical services I responded frequently at night, was by myself, dealing with far more emotionally charged, violent, or risky situations than a speeding ticket, I was often filmed, interfered with, harassed, even assaulted. Never, not ever, not even once, did it ever cross my mind that I command other people, strip them of their constitutional rights, or use my fear or my concern for my safety to order other people around. Now I didn't have a gun on my hip, I didn't a have body armor, I didn't have mace, I didn't have cuffs, I didn't have a baton. I didn't have a badge, or a gang of other officers to call to come defend me. Most importantly I didn't have the training to defend myself, deescalate, or power to detain, arrest, or investigate. The idea that an officer who has all of these resources and many, many more would feel insecure, threatened or in any way concerned for their life in situations far, far more mild than what I dealt with every single day is so ludicrously absurd it is beyond mocking.
If you feel scared. Get out of police. Because you have zero business whatsoever being an officer and you are going to get somebody killed over your incompetent feelings.
Well said!
Cops are some of the most paranoid people on the planet
I agree...
Former EMT here, the police must be held to a higher standard to qualify as law enforcement, like the guy said, only the abusive cops want cameras to be gone. Honest, fair minded police don’t worry about cameras, only the ones breaking laws have a problem with being recorded. Defunding police should be replaced with getting rid of the bad apples, much better results all around. 🤔🤔🤔😉😉
@@derrickbailey5167 It’s the police culture that has to change. They choose aggressive, conformist former jocks as the primary cop type and wonder why nothing changes. And any military background should disqualify someone from being a cop-it is the wrong mentality.
A judge that actually upholds the constitution. Wish we had more of those.
It's what everyone within the system is supposed to represent..
It means nothing. Humans who willingly choose to be "cops" do so because they have A-moral personality traits. Or in other words they are willing to actually kill you for the most unjust and pertty offences. FTP
it's rare right
@jondough930 oh bull shit lol. Judges have complete authority over police. And most police are terrified of judges.
I just KNOW all of you didn't wear masks over your nose during the pandemic 😂
Goobers.
About time! Should never be allowed to be prohibited!
Law enforcement must be trained to accept they are in the public eye 24/7 when doing your job!
You haven't watched Frauditor channels have you?
If anyone is being abusive towards cops and interferes they should be arrested for interfering with a police officer investigation!
Let a jury determine if that was the real reason!
If it’s proven they are interfering they should be found guilty!
@@rbshoemaker Depends on what they're interfering with.
I know, right. If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.
@@TheWatcherxx99 The only fraud is you. First amendment has no exceptions.
The cops in AZ have lost their minds over being recorded. Watch them tape off traffic stops to prevent being recorded, yes they have been recorded literally putting up crime scene tape at traffic stops because they don’t want a record of what they are doing, the DOJ can’t intervene soon enough.
Taping off a traffic stop? Seriously? Taping off an accident is usually indicative of a fatality, in that case it’s reasonable.
@@Richard.Cabeza Yup, they tape it off like a crime scene. Ive seen many auditing videos of Mesa doing it...
@@Richard.Cabeza yup. Direct D has been watching them for awhile now. Anytime he shows up, they put up tape to prevent him from recording them breaking the law and violating rights. Mesa PD is SUPER CORRUPT!
You are absolutely correct and the court system is also involved. They have lost all sense of reality
The DOJ isn't GOING to interfere, they do plenty of shady stuff on their own.
Lawmakers who pass unconstitutional laws should be subject to the punishment for breaking their law when it inevitably gets overturned.
Make them return their salaries
Considering the oath most of them take when they got the job, they're in violation of their oath and should be removed from office ASAFP.
as much as the idea seems fair, it also seems to encompass laws made when the consensus was majoritive. it feels like laws that get overturned in general have to be proved as unconstitutional as opposed to just inherently being overturned or modified. Am I understanding you correctly?
@@dah4x I'm talking about blatantly unconstitutional laws... Not sure what you're trying to say. One more pass at Google translate?
@@dah4x there is a very distinct difference between unconstitutional and laws repealed or redacted. Either way, those enforcing the laws on you should be informed to what they are doing, because as they say...ignorance of the law is no defense.
This is the reason why we need to end qualified immunity. We need to hold the federal and state governments (on down to the county and local) accountable for the laws they are enforcing. It is an equal application of the law.
That law in Arizona was started to target first amendment auditors like DirectD and many others but he is the most in the limelight in AZ. They don’t want people using their rights, informing others of their rights, and so that when they violate the rights of anyone around an incident the cops can then continue to lie & make up evidence to unjustly prosecute innocent people who didn’t bow down to their perceived tyrannical authority of having more rights than the people that they swore an oath to protect/support/defend the constitution (our rights) against all threats foreign and domestic (this would be tyrannical officials throughout different levels of government & catching actual criminals who have legally committed a crime as defined by Blacks Law & not the cops feelings.).
When a police officer used the excuse that the camera operator is “distracting” him, I would suggest that the officer is not properly trained to carry a gun and interact with the public.
Or get help for ADHA …..
So you expect the sheep dogs to be nice to the sheep?? 😊😊😊
@@JP-gi7dw don't expect the sheep dogs to kill the sheep. That dog will be be put down. The sheep produce the money to feed the dogs and are much more important.
When k9s are easily distracted in performing their duties, they are pulled off duty and sent back thru obedience training. If they are found to need more than 2 retraining, they are pulled off the force and sent back to the pound.Same thing should apply to the human k9s.
Watch the Leeja Miller video on why police in the US are so bad. Her info on the ridiculously low amount of hours cops get trained for is quite insightful. And then they are turned loose with a gun and a bad attitude.
I know of one of the sponsors of this bill as I attend the legislature as a citizen. He is a retired police officer, I believe from New Jersey, and he’s always doing things like this, even though he knows it’s blatantly unconstitutional.
That's called a Pig, not a police officer.
Thank you for shedding some light on this, it's much easier to see how this got pushed through when you understand the source.
Sounds a lot like fascism
So, conspiracy against rights? A felony.
@@RammSnipe He's not even a real Scotsman.
There need to be consequences for passing unconstitutional laws that are more immediate and personal than leaving it to elections.
Laws are harmless words without willing enforcers. Learn to put the blame where it properly belongs, on those wearing boots, not suits.
@@jeffkaczmarek3577 Not sure that arbitrary enforcement is a step up.
@@jeffkaczmarek3577 no, no, no. Suits are 100% to blame. The boots are the ones following orders.
@@YTAlnycBest I can do is a 60-40 split.
there are it an uprising
It confuses and aggravates me to the point of screaming, how some states have made it illegal to film public employees in the course of their job......
So we cannot document where our public money is going now????
Some states near me have made it illegal to film ....AT ALL
@@lorenrobertson6017 What states?
Cops: "Nothing to hide, nothing to fear."
Also cops: "Hey, you can't film us!"
The ability to keep a watchful eye on our public servants is important to transparency and accountability.
Everyone wants to talk about video tapeing nobody wants to talk about frauditor actions that get them into trouble
@@rondolan6457 the bs term frauditor probably isn't going to gain you lots of friends. When the boots are kicking your guts out by out of control cops, nobody is going to have any sympathy
I don't think any one breaking the law wants a film at 11.
Why would that also not apply to the police?
The idea that you can break the law to enforce the law is based on what?
@@rondolan6457lol keep calm little piggy
@@jayay5943 Some people love the taste of boot leather.
When they first started with the body cams a lot of officers where annoyed with them. So I asked a state trooper what he thought about it. What he said was:
"Only BAD COPs don't like being recorded."
What type subject to is the idea that the public should have 24 seven, 365 access to every single word and deed any officer ever says or does it any time ever no matter what. Officers are fine with recording actual public contact, what they are not fine with is a body cam that you have to turn on at the beginning of your shift that cannot, for any reason be shut off during the entire shift meaning that they now have to go take a shit on camera and every single word they say in their eight hour shift is being recorded for public consumption.
Imagine just driving around in a car for eight hours with a driving instructor and three lawyers in the backseat with the traffic manual looking for any possible way to find fault in anything you’re doing. Imagine having to signal exactly 150 feet before every turn, imagine having to wait the requisite three seconds after the vehicle passes to be able to make a right turn Imagine a technocrat shoved up your ass looking for any possible flaw in anything that you’ve ever done and then you’ll understand the Panopticon effect of the cops always being under surveillance by the public.
Imagine your partner is going through a divorce but you can’t discuss it at all because every single word either of you says it’s public record and you know that his angry wife is going to pull that record and use it against him in court if you guys discuss the subject .
Now imagine the department angle on this right now they have to record hundreds of thousands of hours of video and make it available to the public at no charge. You have to hire extra staff and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on server storage in order to make all of this ridiculous surveillance available to the public.
@@Matt-yg8ub
1) That's not how badge cams work. They are activated by the officer or an event that triggers it like sirens, or a gun being removed from the holster.
2) I have used dash cams, as many others do now a days, in my personal vehicle to protect me from the wrong doing of others. Some of them recorded 100% of the time I was driving. I even have security cameras at home, both inside and out. Those cameras are more likely to protect me than hurt me.
3) Family court doesnt care about evidence. If you are male you are screwed if you are female "believe all women" is the standard of evidence.
4) Police departments do charge for the recordings. That is if you can afford a lawyer to force them to give you a copy.
Generally speaking, State Troopers are the best of the bunch (higher standards).
@@hxhdfjifzirstc894 Absolutely true. However with the "defund the police" nonsense going on the quality of law enforcement is going to decline across the board.
@@thorn3377 Sadly, this will be true! We will STILL be charged in taxes and fees to PAY for the police service they will NOT provide! If they choose to defund an essential service, we should ALL be given tax rebates!
Why do the police worry about being filmed so much if they aren't doing anything illegal? 🤔
Comes down to control.
Cause they don't control the video so they can't edit or more likely "misplace" the file.
They don't know or care if their actions are illegal.
@@phlodel That too, they can be ignorant of the law and just claim they were following policy and Qi shields them for the most part.
I suspect they're worried about doxing. LEOs aren't exactly popular with the public and there are a lot of people out there who would take it upon themselves to look up an officer's personal info including address. I can see that as a valid concern.
Great points - I saw a video of someone filming their own traffic stop where they were detained and couldn’t move away who was arrested for the 8ft rule - it was absurd!
I've attended events, marches, demonstrations, protests, and parades ... where people filming were standing beside or even filming over the shoulder of, police officers... while simply "covering the event"...
and nobody felt threatened and nobody complained and everyone went home safely.
.
The camera isn't the problem ... the problem is their unwillingness to be held accountable for their actions when they get it wrong and screw up.
Wait a minute, the Governor of AZ who swore an oath to the US Constitution and the LEO's who also swore an oath to the Constitution and requested that the legislators pass a law that was unconstitutional? I wonder if 18 USC 242 will be charged to any of the actors involved in the deprivation of rights?
Former governor…. And not one coward politician that voted for this would defend it in court.
Of course.. when hell freezes over.. in the meantime, just keep VOTING then HOPE for CHANGE.. 😂😂
Too much "Contempt for our Constitution" by those Sworn to Protect our Constitution. It is an Un-American Attitude... God Save Our Constitution from those that dishonor it.
When has any members of the legislation ever been held personally accountable for the votes they make? lol
Death penalty is the ONLY solution.
All of the big departments in Arizona loved that law and are notorious for chasing filmers in order to bring charges against them. The law was also used against the people that encountered law enforcement that started filming for their own protection. A lot of Arizona departments don't have dash or body cameras as well. Whatever interactions filmed are all outside observers or victims of police overreach inside Arizona.
Arizona should have been in the Confederacy, given their ultra redneck outlook
I have seen many videos in which the cops are not doing anything wrong and someone is carrying a camera and shouting insults at the cops. I saw one video in which a cop was helping a man whose car stalled and someone with a camera was shouting insults at the cops. This is living proof that the activists are filming stuff which is not government overreach.
@@marklutz95 That is not an activist. That is an agitator, a provocateur, an instigator, an IOU for a butt-kicking.
A real activist is like a bird-watcher or a football lineman, observing, not interposing.
In the strictest sense, anyone attempting to agitate, where the officer is attempting to deescalate, is indeed interfering, and is inciting disorderly conduct (notice the dodge, because disorderly conduct involves boisterous action; but words intended to elicit disorder, become incitement. Insults to the officer are not sufficient per se, but if the person the policeman is engaging, is made upset and uncooperative, then, we may have a charge.)
@@marklutz95i dying see anything that's not a constitutional right here.
@@KilerReviews These guys think they have a constitutional right to stand anywhere they want on the public sidewalk regardless of how their behavior impacts anyone else. They think they have a constitutional right to tell witnesses not to cooperate. They think they have a constitutional right to demand that public employees respond instantly to their questions, meet with them without appointments, and do whatever it takes to make everything harder than it needs to be.
The legislators that vote yes, and executives that sign off, on laws deemed unconstitutional should be removed and banned from ever holding office again.
Too bad that will never happen because the corruption runs deep in a town or city that will even allow a law like this to be drawn up. It’s a blatant constitutional violation and the only reason they don’t want police being filmed is so the police can get away with more illegal activity.
Ummm, that's a pretty gray area and often requires courts to make a decision. Many courts uphold them thinking they are constitutional while others will strike them down believing they aren't. All laws should go through a review board of constitutional lawyers before being allowed to be voted on. Not sure if that is a requirement right now or not.
That can be done, at the polls.
@@The1stDukeDroklar
There are no requirements for laws to be reviewed by constitutional attorneys before they are put up for a vote.
No, need to add a provision that any member of the legislature can ask the attorney general to review a bill and issue an opinion on whether it is constitutional or not. If the opinion says it is not, then if it is passed and successfully challenged, the salaries of the members who voted for it [and the governor if they didn't veto it] are docked by the state until any costs (salaries, etc. ) of defending this law are paid. I guarantee this will reduce the number of these blatantly unconstitutional laws being passed.
What an excellent piece of news. I first heard about that law while watching an actual video of a police stop in Arizona recorded by someone who was told by an officer (threatened, really, would be a better word) to put the camera down or else… I was stunned when he quoted this law, and I was so horrified by it that I didn’t really believe it was true until I looked it up.
I wanted to just scream into a void, because I do t believe that 8 foot rule is arbitrary at all- it’s specifically designed so that people cannot record their **own** interactions with police. That’s what the law is intended for. There’s nothing more that the cops hate than some damn “disrespectful uppity citizen” who points a cell phone in their face. And I am just delighted beyond words that these arrogant bastards will now have to put up and shut the f up and deal with it.
Imagine how this law could blatantly defile the 1st amendment? Think about a situation where the police a beating a demonstrator, and the media is catching it all on video. One of the cops notice that the media are present so they send an officer to stand exactly 7 feet away from the cameraman and demand he stop filming or he’ll be arrested. Horrifying.
Anyway, what a great day. What a truly beautiful beautiful day. This news has absolutely just brightened my day.
Their *own*
Exactly!
One of the funniest things I've heard is the police telling someone not to film because they the police are filming. They get to edit, delete or do anything they want with the footage and can even deny it being seen.
My opinion is that this bill was specifically written as petty legistration against the youtuber Direct D out of Mesa Arizona. An activist fighting for police accountability.
That's more fact than opinion at this point.
He has managed to ruffle a few feathers, hasn't he?
Maybe we should ask Steve to comment on the judge that has prohibited Chris from filming police officers while they are working?
Yup 100%
@@chrisbrass8930
Or the judge that refused to allow him to have an attorney
Direct D is awesome.
Because artistic activist auditors like Clash with Bao and James Freeman were catching these guys left and right, and they were trying everything to keep them from filming them.
I’m at the point that if I see a cop with his knee on someone’s neck or I hear someone screaming help I’m stepping in. We all need to start stepping in. We will save more lives from the cops.
The only reason police don't want to be filmed is because they know they will get filmed and caught. This same thing has been tried over and over again, and its only the police who want it, because it protects them and makes it harder to hold them accountable.
Better yet, let's just entirely defund the police. Then we could fix the real problems.
Laws need passed to prohibit covering or muting the cameras. They already redact info before release so covering or muting the cameras is tampering with evidence
@@mattgayda2840 Nah there needs to be a law in every state that states this.
All police officers with no exceptions must wear a body camera at all times while on duty, while in uniform, while in state issused vehicales, while working in the capacity of an officer regardless of who is being paid. This body camera must live stream at all times and must include a 24 hour buffer recorder to which an officer is not with in range of service. All police units must provide long range data hubs to offer additional service. The body camera must include a green light indicating that the camera is connected to live streaming and yellow if lost connection and red if there is a fault. If a camrea goes red the officer must stop their duty and report to tech service right away.
Tech service is a 3rd party company that is bound by law and you are required to provided a full background and can have no connection to the police in your family close or not. This company is liable and responsible to maintaining these police recordings and the police are not allowed to enter the property/building except in secured building that is seperarte from the facility. ( like in a guard shack on the edge of the property.
FOIA must be given with in 8 hours of request which you can do at any one of these places/ You can call the state 1 800 number, mail, text, email and type of communication. You can request anything. Each recording will be kept long term.
Any officer who attempts, appears to, or obstruct any recording will be prosecuted for tampering with evidence.
Everything is recorded. There are no exceptions to this.
Keep in mind the police should be able to do their jobs in the public and there are no needs to be undercover and entrapping people. Police can still stake out a place while wearing their body camera, Police can still conduct raids with their comeras. Police can still question people with their camreas.
There is no exception to this and any time a police officer is caught with out a camera on they can and will be fired.
This should not affect their ability to do their job.
I want this law to be passed in one state and adoptive by all states. While it sounds harsh yet they can conduct their jobs with camreas on at all times. People are going to say what about undercover police. Well unless you have a body camera on you can not act as a police officer. What about off duty police. Well that is it they are off duty and should not be getting involved at all. They should carry a body camera at all times if they want to get involved during their off hours.
Acting in the capacity as an officer requires you go have a body camera at all times. So if you so up to a scene and do not have a body camera you must get and officer and tell them you name, badge number and the reason you are here and request a body camera and put it on in front of the officer then state the reason all over again for your own camera.
This will not only prevent the police from abusing their rights it will also pur the public at rest because by law you must have a camera on and not having a camera will likely result in you being let go.
The ability to get these live streaming recording with in 8 hours is the trust that the public needs. The 8 hours is enough time to have the 3rd party company scrub parts of the video such as bathroom breaks. On the camera you can tap a button which will place a marker in the recording and when you are done you can press it again. So like when you go to the bathroom you press it and when you finish you press it again. So when a request comes in they can see this mark go in a speed watch and listen to see if you are faking restroom break to talk on the phone then scrub that section of the video with a black out bathroom break with just enough of the boarder to show that you are not hiding it. Then you can mark when private information is used. Yet keep in mind almost everything the police have is public infromation and such information is subject to a hearing to be unredacted. No one in public can be censored and no one in public lobbies can be censored. Secured areas can be redacted and a hearing can be then done to remove the block. Once the police step out in to the public areas everything they do be it in public, in their unit is all up for grabs. All interactions are now public.
There will be some other stuff that will need to be worked out. Yet overall that is the entire idea.
If an when a law like this is passed and it will likely happen there are going to be a lot of people who quit and a lot of people fired over abuse of their jobs.
The good cops LIKE having body cameras. There are a lot of people that make up crap to try to get cops (that might bye investigating THEM) in trouble. But then there are always those that spoil it for everyone (usually bad cops).
Good, the fact that a law like this was even attempted to be pushed through should make people wonder what was being hidden.
But...but..but the propaganda we are fed over and over says they are all heroes !!
This law would have protected our right to record, not limit it. We need a law stating a distance and 8 feet is more than anyone wanted to record from. Without this law AZ cops think they can push us back 50 feet, 100 feet or even 200 feet. If it was only unlawful to record from closer than 8 feet, their hands would be tied
Identity of a sexual assault? A victim that happens to be a minor?
@@jerrybushmanummmm no. This law allowed them to move people back to whatever distance they want. If you're staying there recording in a cop comes up to you then you would have been forced to move 8 ft away from that cop. If the cop continues to approach you you have to continue to move away from that cop in effect moving away from what you're trying to record.
@@napalmstickylikeglue I think a law that clarifies the amount of space that someone needs to give an officer for him to do his job is reasonable. I understand your concern about an officer violating the space and then charging you, that scenario would need to be addressed in some form.
That cops in Arizona routinely violate the law has NOTHING at all to do with not wanting to be filmed. They started drafting this law right around the same time that the DOJ started investigating AZ cops. Coincidence?
And coincidence that Ontario disbanded one of the top electronics forensic team around the time the government didn't want certain emails recovered.
Mr Lehto you are on fire covering some of the most interesting and important court events. I have learned so much from your videos. Prompting me to read and learn more. Certain at a base level you are helping our nations civics. Many thanks
Maricopa is the locale gift that keeps on giving.
Interference is a physical outward act, such as getting between a cop attempting to effectuate arrest and the subject of the arrest. Steve's example is spot on.
Now we need cameras on politicians, and judges!
Especially judges!
Almost every court room is recorded, what are you talking about? It's not just available to any media who asks, but it's recorded if needed
To all auditors: Keep fighting the good fight! Until these public servants realize integrity and accountability are values not to be feared, you are needed. Thank you for your service.
I may not be a fan of every auditor, but I'm in favor of auditing in general.
@@JonathanLedbetterame, some are moronic and just want YT clout, not to improve bad situations. I work private security and have a game I play with them, I call it, you can film but I can play my highly copyrighted Spotify playlist whilst reminding you that the site I work at owns the property all the way upto the road, not just the fence line so please remove yourself and let me laugh as the trucks driving past all day turn you into paste.
But then also not in the US, here our police have body cameras that must be on when engaging with the public.
@@cgi2002 TBH your copyright trolling is more annoying and also largely ineffective. There are tools that can edit it out, and even a skilled video editor can cut around whatever Taylor Swift or Disney songs you use to try and disrupt their monetization. You're still giving them conflict anyway. In my mind, the best way to disarm them is to be overly friendly because that shit is boring to watch.
@@JonathanLedbetter oh i do that too, i'm excessively polite (technically its part of the job, the music is just to make their lives harder and is playing from the vehicle i'm using), i don't bother to ask why they are filming, i just ask them to "please leave the premises", which i nicely inform them actually go right upto the roadside, the fence is not the border of the property, its 15ft back from the border for safety reasons (there are some odd rules due to the nature of the site). Tbh usually tho we just ignore them entirely unless they are in the way of a work crew on the area outside the fenceline, which is more often than you'd think.
@@cgi2002 they may own up to the roadside but there is still an easement that they have every right to be on and not even police can legally remove them from it.
Officer safety isn’t a law though. It’s a big stretch to call someone with a camera/phone a distraction if your a trained police officer.
Police have mastered the art of turning an observation into a crime.
*Birds, dogs, cats, etc... are also a distraction, are they going to outlaw those creatures being in public as well.*
I can see a case to be made if you're in the officer's back pocket the whole time interfering with their job, but as long as you aren't making yourself part of the situation I see no problem. They should be recording themselves at all times, why ask a court to take my word when I can simply show them what happened?
@@logicplague Correct, but there are a lot of dumbasses who intentionally get involved just so they can post it online, then scream "1st Amendment" when they are told/made to get out of the way.
@@craigbundrant Agreed, another reason for the body cams, "Why did you faceplant this...oh."
This one is IMPORTANT .,. a victory for the citizens and common sense and Constitution
I'm glad that you explained it because, to me, staying a safe distance away from a cop doing their job is perfectly reasonable, but it has nothing to do with the camera. If cops need more detailed/stringent laws to stay safe and do their jobs, then that's got nothing to do with a camera.
The cops fear of being filmed shows exactly why we must film them more.
I rarely use my camera phone. If I see an arrest, I will let them do their job…..
*If you're there with a camera then you're usually filming what the police don't do, that's why they don't want a camera there so they can do what police usually do which is stomp all over the rights of just about everyone they encounter, abuse their authority, use excessive force and in some cases beat the living crap out of someone because they didn't get some action from their lady last night or just for the heck of it.*
You also forget to mention when They (VERY often) TASE ! TASE !! TASE !!!
That's why I think the arbitrary "don't get close to us, we're scared because it's dark" or whatever Steve mentioned as reasonable is not. I've seen police arrest people in their own yards under the same guise of safety for the officer. It's not our job to provide safety for the officer as fellow citizens, there's a bazillion videos of police leaving that dark night traffic stop to leave the suspect and accuse the person being relatively near them of violating their crime scene.
@@veng3r663 *Yep, seems to be an automatic deployment these days.*
@@vocs75 *True, and what about our safety, they're the ones carrying a bunch of loaded weapons!*
because QI still exists for cops, people will still get arrested regardless of the law !!
I have seen video of police getting twisted up about people recording them from anywhere between 10' to more than 50' saying the person/people were interfering, it's not really about the distance it's about them not wanting to be held accountable by citizens
I saw an Audit the Audit video where the cops were trying to get some person down from, I think it was a water tower? And the guy was filming them from probably a quarter mile away across an open field. They had to drive over to tell him he was too close and had to move back another quarter mile to where he couldn't see anything. If someone is actually physically getting in their way they'll arrest them for obstruction immediately, they just want to unconstitutionally punish people for filming them.
If they can't bully someone into stopping the filming, they'll often shine a very bright flashlight into the camera so as to interfere with it. IMO, that too is a violation of the camera owner's 1A rights, and should be the subject of a lawsuit.
@@selfdoit's the Bane act, not just your opinion. It IS illegal.
Getting unhinged, leaving their post 'protecting; a fellow officer to walk 50 feet to engage a cam holder. This for officer safety, lmao.
@@Well-thatmakessense That is a California Act.
Thank you USA Federal Courts for making the correct decision in this case. Steve, Again I want to say thank you for talking about all the differant things that happen in the courts here in the USA. I hope you keep making videos for many, many more years.
The justice system IE: judges,District attorney, tend to take the word of the police over a citizen, The camera tells the truth
Cops - "we dont want to be filmed breaking the law"
Also Cops - "we want speed trap cameras and red light cameras so we can film you breaking the law"
Rules for thee but not for me.
It's more like private companies want speed cameras and red light cameras. Private companies put out red light tickets and collected finea when red light cameras were still allowed in Texas.
What about every cop’s personal vehicle I see with those illegal license plate covers that obscure the plates info?!?!
The speed trap cameras and red light cameras are not usually due to the police, it is the political administrators looking to line their coffers with the money from the fines.
If one cop on his own *IN THE DARKNESS* is scary for the cop, then don't do it!!! Instead, always have TWO cops, then you will never be surprised by someone coming out of the darkness. HOW DIFFICULT IS THAT????? Sometimes, I think these cops are totally stupid.
I would vote for you for the Supreme Court, if I could. I know that's not how it works but I appreciate your struggle to stand up for our rights.
Who gave power to the government?? GODS?? 😂😂
Mickey Mouse does more for our civil rights than any member of The Supreme Court of The United States.
@@snarkybuttcrack Steve is educating people about what are their rights, the last thing a LEO needs is someone who actually knows the bs at the roadside is actually bs and that the LEO is over stating their case and trying to conduct an action that is illegal, re the Video on the Kansas State Patrol's blatant attempts to violate the constitution through the use of illegal tactics to search vehicles.
So by informing people through his channel when such cases are reported or reach the courts then people are empowered to know when they are stopped that the LEO is not within their rights and has in effect gone "Ultra Vires."
I can't believe there was even a law like that in the first place.
exactly
Uptight cops invented law .
I can't believe people like Jay Inslee, Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer, or AOC were elected, but here we are.
@@anonymousnearseattle2788cope
The Supreme courts are putting in work❤️💪! Great job and thank you❤️🔥👍👍!!
Any unconstitutional proposals should be met with immediate jail time
They'll keep trying until it sticks. They pay for the litigation with our taxed $$, so why not?
Basically, its not the recording, its the documentation of actions they are concerned about.
IMO, the main reason cops don't want you to record video is because it impedes their ability to get away with lying in court.
That said, a camera is not a license to interfere. As Steve said, the camera should not make a difference. If you can stand in a spot without a camera, you should be able to stand there with a camera. Likewise, if you can't stand somewhere, having a camera doesn't give you special permission.
Did you know the courts allowed sheep dogs to lie to the sheep?? 😂😂
The First Amendment's freedom of the press may well give you a particular right that you don't have without the camera.
@@larryforeman7157 A person can still disseminate their experiences be it in written form, verbally, acted out, etc..
So with or without extra documenting tools on hand we all have press freedom.
A majority of this has to do with "Direct D" and others in the Phoenix area filming cops violating civil rights of people the cops stop and question. After all... it's harder for the cops to violate your rights when being filmed. They don't want to lose "Qualified Immunity" and get sued for violating someone's civil rights. The cops say they have body cams for this... problem is, they turn them off, mute conversations, etc, when they do stuff, so they don't get caught (as often). If you try to FOIA the video, they deny transparency, edit out, etc, and make it near impossible to get the video. The filming provides transparency and makes cops accountable for their actions.
It's all about the presence of the camera. I have seen many videos where the police start in on the guys with the cameras telling them that it's a "crime scene", but they let everyone else without a camera walk through the "crime scene". Cops are afraid of the cameras because it catches them violating peoples rights or violating the law.
I love watching your videos. I’m middle age, just finished paralegal degree, prepping for law school (getting kind of long in the tooth to go to law school, but what the hell…). I really enjoy how you break down these cases and situations, I find them endlessly fascinating. I had no idea I was a legal nerd until a few years ago. Legal thinking is calming medicine for my soul… it’s the weirdest thing.
Good luck! You're never too old. Henry Kissinger flew to China for some high level meetings & he's 100! I'm sure it wasn't to be fitted for his replacement parts 😅
I'm about to consider paralegal school.
@@giantdad1661 Do it, best thing I ever did. It opened up a whole new world for me.
I know a guy who went to law school and became an attorney in his early 50’s. He told me he’d gotten an associates as a young man and had to do all the prelim college stuff. Good on you for doing this in middle age.
@@ithinkaboutthings9052 Thanks, I appreciate all the support! I've done a lot of reflecting over the past 6 years I've been back in college (finishing 2nd degree now in my early 50s and prepping for the LSAT) over wishing I didn't party like a rock star my youth because I'm pretty sure I was more intelligent when I was younger (I might now have brain damage, boy was I stupid for being so smart). I'm hoping the high doses of B vitamins with fix things... I just keep carving new neural pathways... I better live to be at least 130 years old... bring on the life-extension therapies...
Passing unconstitutional laws needs to come with a substantial pay cut for every congress member that voted in favor of it.
Congress as a whole needs a pay cut, and no retirement. But passing unconstitutional laws deserves immediate removal from office and jail time, as far as I’m concerned.
and charged with treason because it's a breach of trust.
@@cbkqmomYes.
Intentionally violating the constitution should come with swift, harsh, and permanent damages to the people doing it.
There's a reason we didn't have these problems when hangings were held with useless politicians.
yesssssssssssssss
Who are the 🤡🤡 that VOTED repeatedly for the corrupt system to be their masters?? 😂😂😂
Wouldn't the Police Officer stepping towards you be "Entrapment" among other things?
Arizona needs more public recording of police activities. Past recorded police criminal activity proves that.
Jesus, when one man is enough to drive the corrupt to out themselves, you know that man is doing a great job holding the corrupt accountable, well done Direct D.
No one's a bigger supporter of law enforcement than I am, but I support this decision. We all benefit with more eyes, not less. And your description of an officer stepping closer and telling someone to stop, all the while encroaching on their space is spot on. I've seen it happen here on TH-cam multiple times a week. And didn't they pass something similar to this in Florida recently??
Back the blue until it happens to you
The more you watch videos about how police actually operate, the less of an LEO supporter you become.
@@JonathanLedbetter That is what happened to me although coming from NYC the cops were always thugs making stuff up as they chose. CHP were always fair and professional. I have had zero LEO contact in the 20 years living in NC.
Why?
Why do you reflexively “Support” the armed representatives of the government?
Is your freedom such an abstraction that you can’t see that these are the jack boots who carry out the orders of the politicians?
Help us understand this mentality.
@@cedarbay3994 well, I suppose I should’ve the words “used to be”. Not anymore.
They need to pass a law that LEOs can’t step within arms length of “WE THE PEOPLE” unless they are detaining or arresting you.
Couple things: it wasn't 8 ft from an officer, it was 8ft from police action. And, more importantly, it stated in the bill that you have to have the officers permission to film at all
@mr, Unless the officer wants you to stay further away from him while he's conducting an investigation, camera or not you can't be walking up on a cop when he's trying to assess the situation
Do not need their "permission" the FIRST AMENDMENT guarantees everyone's right to record any PUBLIC SERVANTS
The law made it illegal in Arizona to knowingly video police officers 8 feet (2.5 meters) or closer without an officer’s permission. The police action could be 20 feet away and the police officer may want to control a scene by making you stay 8ft away from him or her. As Steve said, they can keep walking in front of you to make you stay 8ft away from them.
@@stclairstclairI've got a better idea: Train the officer to help people instead of hurt people. See, that way he'll be in the mindset of "good, this guy's helping make sure everone can know what really happened" instead of "I can't let this guy capture me breaking the law"
Who defines the location and area of the police action?
SCOTUS has already ruled that the people can record all public servants during the course of their jobs
The ability to film should also apply in courtrooms!
Only if it's your case. Some stuff discussed in court should remain private.
As you know, Steve, the Big Court settled this question years ago. I'm a retired cop and I have been assuming I'm recorded since 1992. If someone is recording too closely and gets in the way of officers or anyone for that matter doing their jobs, then charge with obstruction legal process or official duty. The recording law is too screwy.
"obstruction" is commonly regarded to be a physical act, not filming....that concept came from racist and psychotic morons trying to hide their crimes and misconducts
most cops just dont want their criminal actions recorded, plain and simple
@@d.b.6240 , I would disagree with most cops having that attitude today. In the early 1990s, that was the case. Then, something heppened. When officers were falsely accused, the recordings came in very very handy. Cops started filing civil cases and making money when they were falsely accused, and actually began embracing the belt recorders, then the cameras. I know; I was there.
I totally agree with the logic. The fact that they state someone getting too close, 'WITH A CAMERA'. demonstrates that it's NOT about impeding their ability to do their job that is their concern, but rather their activities being documented.
Ben reaching for the handle of the sword to our left.
Steve, even as a Canadian, I'm always intrigued and entertained by your videos. Thanks very much!
Betrayal can never be forgiven. But they can sure as hell apologize for trying to commit treason.
8 feet seems reasonable; with that said you should be able to record without limits. It all boils down to money really and we know that. The recordings are starting to put a little bit of a squeeze on qualified immunity. More lawsuits, more money paid out. It is notoriously. Difficult to sue, law-enforcement. The cameras are making it easier.
So that would have basically made it illegal to film your own interactions with police.
Just trying to limit accountability for police.
Glad there is still some sanity in the system.
The law was trash and was rightfully overturned but if I remember correctly the law did allow you to film your own interactions with no distance restrictions.
Of course they gotta keep the sheep believing in the system.. 😊😊
There is that incident where they arrested that crazy FLDS guy for transporting his under aged wives in a trailer, the 2 that were over 18 wanted to film the interaction and the cops referenced this law to keep them from doing so, took their phones and piled them on the hood of a cop car.
"So that would have basically made it illegal to film your own interactions with police."
That was the IDEA.
I believe the law exempted your own interaction with the police. Still a bad idea.
I feel so validated! Maybe I should become a lawyer. Before this law was passed in Arizona, my first thought was, what does this have to do with a camera? Why would it matter whether I'm recording or not? If I'm "interfering" I'm "interfering".
This was inevitable.
I fully believe the only job creation the GOP has done over the last two decades is attorneys to fight all the unconstitutional laws they like to ram through state legislatures.
This is great news and the judge who struck it down is a smart Judge (yes there are a few stupid ones) who actually used logic in his decisions.
When this law came to be I was dumbfounded as to how it could be made and you exactly made all of my points in this video. Including the one Reg officer safety. I believe all officers should be in two man teams always. That way should someone come out of the dark behind one officer they have another officer positioned that has their back. Honest and good officers have nothing to fear from cameras. Only crooked ones.
I'm pretty sure stupid people don't get accepted into law school or any other decent institution. They are corrupt, not stupid.
Less than 100 officers are feloniously killed yearly yet they kill several hundreds of civilians, many unarmed, & are rarely held accountable. We don't need more of them.
Plus the backup cop should be accountable to keep the other one from abusing people.
The problem is they're all criminals and they know it.
Every time they have violated someone's rights or stood by when one of their colleagues did makes them an accessory at best.
The "I'm just doing my job" and/or "I'm just following procedure/orders" defense didn't work for the nazis and shouldn't work for these jack booted thugs either.
Nobody fought for it, because the cops can just say you’re too close, beat the living crap out of you (or worse), drag your ass off to jail, and investigate themselves finding no wrongdoing. It’s time to level the playing field.
Direct D is a YT channel from Mesa Arizona. This is the group who Steve is talking about.
Interesting. I remember Illinois had a statute like this that was struck down and they kept enforcing it until a federal judge held a prosecutor in civil contempt. The 7th Circuit ended up affirming the injunction that was put in place. This was like 2011-12ish? Not sure how these statutes keep popping up.
Maryland had this until just a few years ago, they arrested a motorcycle rider with a go pro camera on his helmet at gunpoint! It was absurd and took 3-5 years to get finalized
Government doesn’t like accountability.
Because none of them were prosecuted under 28USC 144 bias, and 18USC 241/242 deprivation of rights. Same reason cameras are banned from courtrooms except with specific written permission. Who watches the watchers?
@@PBVader the courtroom/courthouse issue is the next one auditors are going to have to start addressing. Another place that is extremely corrupt, shady, and lacking transparency. And a corrupt court can REALLY screw up someone's life.
Cop Unions and municipalities that would rather solve the lawsuit problem by infringing on the 1A rights of the People rather than actually discipline their police.
Auditors do good work. They're constantly fighting and defeating bs laws and ordinances like this.
The public servents always get angry when an auditor shows up and deny access to public buildings. If they’d go along and allow the auditor access there’d be no content worth posting and auditing would end. It’s the egos of the public servants that keep it going.
First this was fought the correct way. In the courtroom not somewhere on the side of the road in an argument somebody getting arrested. Second first amendment auditors tend to film in areas where could be permissible or might not. I seen a recent video where a guy was filming kids outside of school well they played in a playground. Just because you can do something doesn't necessarily mean you should. As a parent, this would have made me nervous but the police can't question him they can't identify him. He could be breaking the law by not being allowed to be there, but they can't do anything because he didn't break the law by standing on a public sidewalk. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. If you want to challenge an ordnance about no filming in a post office. Then, take it to court, let a court decide if you can film in a post office. But don't argue with the police if you can or can't. Yes I can stand outside a school playground and film all day long but the only purpose I would do that if I was looking for a confrontation knowing somebody was going to call the police and police was going to come and question what I'm doing. That serves no purpose but to myself looking for a confrontation.
@@DaleStewart-mv4kc I will say that I have seen some 1A auditors push the limits on a few things, but too often have seen LEOs and other citizens fail to understand the law let alone know basic civics. Some people, including LEOs want to enforce feelings while actually violating the law. The courts have ruled that anything that can be seen in public can be photographed, filmed, and/or recorded. My favorite is outside of government buildings and you can get Google Earth Street view and other USGS products that show imagery of those areas. As for the USPS, I believe Poster 7 covers photography in post offices and it is allowed. Anyone worried about being filmed in public should look around next time your are at a bank, grocery store, Walmart, pretty much any government building, the DMV, on the highways or interstates and you will see cameras all over the place. One last note, try doing a Freedom of Information Act request from some of these places and see how long it takes and how often that information is denied.
@@DaleStewart-mv4kcxactly. First amendment auditors or "frauditors" are nothing more than cash for confrontation channels. They make a good living getting in unsuspecting people's faces and when they ask what the frauditor is doing they talk to person like shit. Some of them are really disgusting individuals. They are not fighting for rights they harass public servants to get a rise out of them and then cash in on TH-cam.
There are far better ways to fight for rights and uphold laws than instigating and filming conflict with public servants. But that wouldn't be profitable.
@DaleStewart-mv4kc It sounds like you begrudgingly accept the school sidewalk situation, big respect for that. But where I disagree with you on is the "just take them to court to change laws" thing, which to my understanding is difficult if you don't have standing. I also disagree with "don't have an argument on the side of the road." Public sidewalks and roads are ancient public forums, no better place to spread an idea in a peaceful way. No sense in being overly litigious if a peaceful demonstration gets the point across. It's not the auditors' faults if the police want to escalate. That's victim blaming.
The cops didn’t fight this because 8 feet is way too close for them. They routinely tell people to stay back 20 or more feet. Now with no set distance, they are right back to having “discretion” to force people back as far as they want. It really is devious the way this went down.
Actually that's not the case. The only way they can claim that you are in their scene is if they are putting up crime scene tape.
@@napalmstickylikegluesadly, it's wherever they want it
@@napalmstickylikeglue Yeah thats really how the vermin work
@@napalmstickylikeglueNo, that’s not true - verbal instructions are sufficient.
@@ganndeber1621 yup. But crime scene taping takes time. Fortunately, most cops are lazy.
One of the reasons I’d heard while in AZ was that it would make it illegal to record a traffic stop on a dash camera. I don’t know if it’s true, but it makes sense. There’s no way to have a dash camera more than 8’ away. If there isn’t anyone around to film what an officer is doing during a traffic stop it becomes your word against theirs.
have watched you for some time, it is hard for me to believe your an attorney because you are very likable, you do not appear to be arrogant etc. Keep up the great videos!
I'm glad they finally got this resolved. And Steve made an excellent point about how not interfering with police has nothing to do with a camera.
This law was introduced because of auditors, aka people who know their rights like direct d. Good job guys.
He is a boss that's for sure go Direct D. 😎
good thing you didn't reference Delete Lawz (god that guy is a trainwreck)
Direct D is the best 😂
man knows his stuff, police need better training!
Yeah plod hate it when people know their rights. It limits the powers of the scum
Amen brother.
Like another commenter said. This was the Direct D law. Now Mesa PD is stringing miles of crime tape around traffic stops to preclude photography.
Direct D got really screwed over. The cops, DAs and judges that pushed his convictions need to be thrown in prison themselves, and Direct D's sentences need to be expunged and thrown out.
People need to get smarter, move a block away, out of sight and launch a small drone, not directly over the police. Film. A tiny drone of a few ounces is no threat.
Poor cops, can't commit crimes without people gathering proof. Imagine being held accountable for your actions, the HORROR!
Great discussion. Thank you Steve.
Regarding traffic stop. You have likely also noticed the officer getting upset with the cameraman's location but he has no response to other people walking by, often even closer. They get triggered by the camera, not the location of the person.
Exactly!
To be fair, most people walking by just look while they keep walking… Most videos I see made by people recording police, or from police body cameras, show the third party with a camera also talking chit to the police and essentially harassing or interfering with the police office trying to do his job… I am all for recording police, especially when they are not following policy or acting beyond authority, but people should stand back and not argue… It is the job of the court to make determines of law, not people who watched a few videos on TH-cam and act like constitutional law experts…
@@EarlHayward Not so. Most auditors and cop watchers do not say anything to the cop until the cop addresses them. The cop watcher might try to inform the subject. "You don't have to let them search your car. Just tell them NO." and such. Most auditors and cop watchers know the laws much better than the cops. The cops confuse training and agency policy with the law. Ask a cop what a lawful order is? Most think it is anything they want you to do as long as it is not illegal. There are many things a cop can say but few things a cop can order you to do under threat of arrest.
Cops don't even understand the limits of Terry v Ohio or Brown v Texas. They may know PA v Mimms but not Rodriguez v US or Delaware v Prouse. Hiibel v 6th Dist. They should know these court decisions. It is rare to find a cop who knows Turner v Driver. It is fun to watch Phil Turner set up ignorant cops.
Kudos to DirectD and all his hard work!
One of the latest methods used is to set up a crime scene that encompasses 10 times the area actually necessary.
I'm sure they'll continue telling people there is a law when there isnt.
So glad to hear this!!
They can film us.. Doesn’t make sense to even argue this! EVER PERIOD.
Who is to ever say someone in Public can’t do a basic equal interaction.
They already carry guns.
Now we can’t approach them to observe something that could be disputed.. publicly….
Ummm.. AZ, wouldn’t expect any less..
They would give someone homeless a ticket for being homeless..b
This is great!
You were first congratulations
In the scenario Steve laid out about the officer fearing for his safety makes me laugh. Why should and officer be so fearful. I'm vacation in Italy and I make the comparison of how the police and carabiniari are dressed with a nice polo, tight slacks, a belt clip with a barreta, and maybe one extra clip... oh, and a cigarette.
In the states the police are dressed like they are going into a war zone. 😂
Well, some places in the US are practically war zones… Los Angeles, Chicago… How many cops in Italy get shot and killed each year?
Exactly.
Cops are so paranoid-like everyone is always trying to get them.
The bill was sponsored by Sen. John Kavanagh an ex police officer. Police departments pushed for this bill bcuz in Arizona there are individuals and groups that go out and record the police. In many of the videos the cop watchers keep their distance and are silent. Occasionally they'll ask the person what's the reason for the stop, tell a driver suspected of dui they don't have to do a field sobriety test, or challenge the officers unlawful orders. Like many other police departments, Arizona has a long history of misconduct and brutality towards it residents.
This was an outstanding explanation of the issues around recording police.
When voters seek to educate themselves on the quality of incumbent politicians in office is there a database tracking how much legislation they have signed off on that has subsequently proven to be struck down by courts?
Yes, they're in public, they can be filmed, just like we can.