Your comment, like many others in this thread, seems to be of the form "what if the police do this other, unrelated, illegal thing?"
The solution is to make sure there are repercussions for cops doing illegal things, not to prevent laws from being passed because cops might try to twist the intention of the law to try to justify illegal acts.
Courts have a lot of discretion in deciding cases, and many cases come down to a question of intent. If 12 cops intentionally body-block someone who is recording, that's something that a judge isn't likely to look at too fondly.
> If 12 cops intentionally body-block someone who is recording, that's something that a judge isn't likely to look at too fondly.
That’s all fine and well, but when they can just take your device then you no longer have a video of whatever you were attempting to record. Things used in a “crime” are subject to seizure.
I have seen Seattle police slam a person's head into the ground, surround them, and appear to purposely cut off any viewing angles. As far as I know, no charges were raised and this person ended up in hospital after immediate medical assistance was blocked.
I can't design a new society in the comments section. The question of how to reform the policing system to make cops more accountable for unlawful actions isn't really in the scope of this article.
The question of how is beyond the scope but the implications of this specific legislation sure is. It is incredibly open to abuse and arguably because of existing legislation already surrounding interfering with police entirely unnecessary outside of its very obvious abuse potential.
Police should be subject to more scrutiny and not less. This specifically makes it easier for them to evade scrutiny. I struggle to see any good faith argument that leads to less accountability or evidence in general. It’s almost comedic in a “What are you afraid of if you have nothing to hide” sense that is often applied in the other direction of police having authority beyond what is reasonable.
I think you're right. Usually a dozen cops respond to most major calls. Now anybody trying to record, within a block of the action, will be arrested and have their camera seized.
While these people may be arrested and their cameras may be seized, they could easily sue for unlawful arrest if they were more than 8 feet away at the time. Exactly the same as if their cameras were seized before the 8-foot law were in effect.
If police unlawfully seize and destroy your recorded evidence, then it doesn't matter whether there was a law like this in effect. The officer could make up any story to justify their action under any law.
Mandatory body cam laws would be a lot more relevant in that case, not 8-foot citizen recording laws.
