The way I understood the law, if it passed as written, it would apply in a traffic stop as well. Yes, you said "go within 100 ft.", but in the discussion of whether or not this is a good law, you wouldn't need to "go". The law is written about "within", not "within after advancing upon". I asked because you didn't say. Snarky comments aside, "it won't ever apply to me" is a pretty poor reason for being OK with a law that would further restrict citizen's rights.joe817 wrote:Well, let's look at what I said: "....I do not intend to go within...". That would mean me advancing on the LEO's position, doesn't it? If it wasn't taken that way, that's the way I meant it. If the LEO come to me then that's another matter, don't you think? Besides, I don't do video's of cops performing their duty. Not to mention a routine traffic stop.ScooterSissy wrote:What if said LEO stops you in your vehicle for a traffic violation? Keep in mind, I also never intend to get stopped; but it happens. I'd hate to think that I, or someone inside the vehicle, has to stop recording.joe817 wrote:Well, I don't know about anyone else, but I do not intend to go within 100 ft. much less 25 ft. of a law enforcement officer in exercising his/her duties. Unless.....I am needed to stop and render aid to the LEO, if in the remote event he/she, IMO, needs it.
Your opinion may vary, of course...
"Well, let's look at what I said" - nope, no such implication. I made that statement right after saying I never intend to get stopped, but it happens. I said "I" because I was talking about myself, and expressing one of the reasons I don't like the law.joe817 wrote:And lastly, you are implying that you are in the car with me, if I do get stopped(" I'd hate to think that I, or someone inside the vehicle, has to stop recording."-your words, not mine).... I wouldn't permit somebody recording the incident. Besides, I don't even know you. And I don't let strangers in my car.
My issue is that it's a completely unnecessary law, and ripe for abuse.
Unnecessary
I heard a policeman call into the Mark Davis show on the way to work this morning, and talked about how it's a "needed" law, because people filming a cop that close adds one more distraction that can interfere with their job. The problem with that is such a person can be the same distraction without the camera. Police already can detain, and arrest, someone interfering with their duties. They don't need a law specifying the person interfering has to have a camera.
Ripe for Abuse
As has been pointed out, there have already been cases where policemen have told people that it is illegal for them to record an officer. Some have tried to use wiretapping laws to back this up. Face it, even though the vast majority of policemen are just out there doing a job as best they can, there are some bad apples in the bunch. We don't need to give the bad apples another method to hide their deeds in darkness.