It's always better to go directly to the source, rather than rely on someone else's summary of something as a source for analysis. Your concern is addressed in the actual text:
> Provision 4: Provides that a person who is the subject of the police contact may make a recording if doing so does not interfere with lawful police actions. (Sec. 1)
The law shouldn't exist because it doesn't express a problem and a solution to that problem that holds water.
All it does is gives cops something they can say to people to get something they don't actually have a right to.
They don't actually have a right to conduct misdeeds in private, but with this on the books, they can confuse and intimidate most people into doing what they want in the heat of the moment, and by the time everyone goes home and googles later, the damage has already been done. The recording was not made and you aren't likely to ever be in the same situation again.
Bad officers can already confuse and mislead. How will this law change anything? It won't. Obstruction of justice already exists, and it is merely a standard instead of a law for how close someone can be to a cop performing an arrest. I really can't understand the opposition to this law. All I see is "cop = bad" logic.
Exactly. Obstruction of justice and interfering with performance of duties etc already exist.
The opposition is that there is no justification for it. It doesn't express problem that survives scrutiny, and doesn't express a solution to a problem that survives scrutiny.
What it does do is give power to people that don't need it, for a reason that doesn't wash.
Only a bad cop even wants this. A good cop understands that their annoyance at bystanders witnessing them is not justification for trying to remove witnesses. Yes they can be annoying and interfering, and dealing with that is part of the job of being a professional officer with any inyegrity. Only a bad cop thinks their life should be easier at the expense of transparency and accountability. Only a bad cop is willing to accept the benefits of a chilling effect and ignore it's fundamental invalidity and dishonesty.
A good cop is willing to use existing means (since they do exist) to deal with actual interference. If a bystander is actually a problem, a good cop has no problem simply classifying them as a problem, dealing with it (arrest them) and defend that action later, because their action was justified and they can say it with a straight face to a room full of people who are not their friends.
It is designed exactly to sound reasonable, while not actually being either reasonable or justifiable. It addresses no valid problem, attains no valid goal, and so needs to be sold somehow.
Perhaps the valid problem is the public getting too close to police officers performing their duty, commonly while ostensibly filming, endangering either the police officers, or the public in the process.
Does a police officer have to worry about a legitimate journalist or honest citizen 5' away filming them while performing an arrest? No. But how exactly does the cop know the person is a legitimate journalist or honest citizen, and not an acquaintance of the person being arrested?
I take back what I said. It doesn't actually address my concern.
All the officer has to say is that your filming was interfering with their actions, and then they'll slap that charge on you and confiscate your phone,
possibly combining with resisting arrest. Also, the worse the officer's
transgression is, the more likely that your phone will be "accidentally
damaged".
Even if the officer's claim is bullshit, the cost of defending against their
bullshit is going to be infeasible for many.
Also, if you are not a hardened criminal, getting arrested is a shocking event, and the support of friends with video cameras can make the difference. Literally, if not often, life and death.
