Current masking aside, I'm not sure I could positively reidentify an officer wearing a full-face helmet and other riot gear. Especially amongst 30-50 of their identically-dressed peers.
Riot gear is a good point. But I'd say making identification clearly visible from >8' is probably the better solution than requiring camera-persons to get closer than that to riot police.
It's very difficult to get the police to reliably identify themselves. Here in NYC they like to cover their (legally required) identifying information with little black strips of cloth[1].
But the point about 8' raises something else: there's nothing stopping the police from walking up to you and demanding that you turn off your camera. These laws also invert the burden of proof: it's now your word against a cop's that you really were more than 8' away, and not 7.5'. These are not acceptable powers to yield to a largely unchecked authority.
The alternative (requiring no minimum distance between a police action and a protected recording) seems worse to me.
8' is a quantified line.
An unstated number of feet is more open to interpretation. Were you "interfering" with an arrest at 4'? 10'? 50'? That's a very fuzzy line in a court system that's typically deferential to law enforcement.
So, to me, it seems like an improvement on the certainty of rights. If you are 8' away, during a dangerous situation, or other caveat lesser distances as specified in the law, you have followed all legal guidelines and are not interfering with police action.
Ultimately, we'll see what the Supreme Court has to say. But to me, this sounds like a middle ground, rather than a sky-is-falling option.
> The alternative (requiring no minimum distance between a police action and a protected recording) seems worse to me.
Others have pointed out that the lack of a minimum distance is in fact an excellent thing: we don't get to choose how close we are to a crime when it happens. I could be on a bus sitting next to a victim of police brutality while it happens; should I have to stand up and shove my way through people until I am "far enough" away to legally record it? How does that serve the interests of justice?
Barring evidence that filming is itself a form of interference in police activity, it's not clear why we should have a separate standard for it. Interfering with a police investigation is, after all, already illegal.
(I also don't think the sky is falling. But I do think this inverts a currently very reasonable burden of proof, i.e. that the police must show that you are actually interfering with their work, and not merely recording it.)
I agree that the burden of proof should lay with the police: to prove that you were < 8' away, that you interfered with a police action, and that the action was a dangerous situation.
But the "I don't get to choose where I am" situation feels like nerd rules lawyering.
If I am sitting right next to someone on a bus, and the police run in and begin assaulting that person, my first action is going to be to get 8'+ away from what's happening. I'm not going to immediately pull out my cell phone while someone is getting beaten right next to me and start shoving it in the officer's face.
The constructed situation requires that (1) the only bystander is < 8' from the police, and (2a) there isn't an easy way to move away (in an environment that isn't specifically noted in the law as an exclusion) or (2b) the action is over before the bystander could move 8'+ away.
That doesn't describe a lot of police incidents I've seen or seen recordings of. Usually there's zero or 2+ bystanders. And usually the action escalates over at least 2 minutes, in an open environment.
My rationale for why there should be a separate standard for recording is that we should be encouraging more citizen to do it! Everyone record the cops!
But...! Recognize that adding stress to an already stressful situation is unlikely to produce positive results. Most people are idiots, especially when tempers are running hot on all sides.
If I were a cop, having a bunch of angry citizens < 8' from me, recording and yelling things at me, is unlikely to lead me to be a calmer officer and make deescalatory choices. It's going to increase tension; I'm going to make worse decisions; and that isn't going to end well for anyone. Myself, the supposed perpetrator, or the citizens around me.
And isn't that what we should be focused on? Maximizing the chance of good outcomes for everyone?
