House Bill 2918

[rotor]

When you increase the distance you can't hear what is being said. Not a very subtle form of censorship.

[oohrah]

It would also prevent you from recording your own traffic stop. Nobody in public has an expectation of privacy. This is a bad bill, and I will write my rep if it gets out of committee.

[Armybrat]

I believe the author is a republician also.

He's a politician.

Besides, most Texas republicans used to be democrats.

[joe817]

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.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Rep. Villalba is an A-rated pro-gun Republican. Nevertheless, this is a very bad bill and I suspect he didn't write it. It's going nowhere.

Chas.

[Paragrouper]

Disgusting bill.

Police need to be able to be observed and documented by people as long as they do not interfere with their duties. There's no need to put a distance limit. Just let a jury decide if someone was actually interfering or simply observing.

Recording an event does not impede a LEO--unless that LEO intends act in a manner that is unprofessional.

[Jason K]

Rep. Villalba is an A-rated pro-gun Republican. Nevertheless, this is a very bad bill and I suspect he didn't write it. It's going nowhere.

Chas.

Then we can expect to hear that TSRA and NRA will publically oppose the bill because it targets CHL holders, right?

[The Annoyed Man]

I'm a long time lurker, and have learned a lot from this message board. I am usually content to just sit back, watch, and occasionally participate in the calls to action. Until I saw this bill.
I wanted to make sure the community was aware of it. It seems the intent is to make it a crime to film a police officer within 25 feet of him performing his duty. Which, I suppose I don't have MUCH of a problem with. They have a job to do, and folks need to give them room.
HOWEVER, if you are carrying a weapon under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, you must stay back 100 feet. This extra 75 foot "constitution free zone" is highly offensive to me. And I have absolutely NO plans on running around recording the police.

I do have a dash camera in my vehicle. Am I to understand that it is against the law for me to record a police officer within 100 feet of my vehicle? What if I am carrying under Subchapter H (and I ALWAYS carry on my person in my vehicle) and I am pulled over? The way the law is written now it looks like I am committing a crime.

Here is a link to the bill:
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLook ... ill=HB2918" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The ACLU thinks you can do it: https://www.aclu.org/kyr-photo

Taking photographs of thingsthat are plainly visible from public spaces is a constitutional right – and that includes federal buildings, transportation facilities, and police and other government officials carrying out their duties.

[Charlies.Contingency]

My biggest question, is what would be probably cause for arrest? Is having my phone out enough propbably cause to be asked if I have a chl, and if I answer yes, could they detain me pending investigation, which could require a judge's approval to search my phone for the evidence? Regardless, it would make another fallback charge, and give officers another loophole to work with. I have the right to record and take pictures, end of story, BAD BILL.

[ScooterSissy]

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.

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.

[The Annoyed Man]

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.

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.

By the way, in my previous post (3rd one above this one), I was NOT saying that one should stand around and "monitor" cops with your camera. I'm just saying that it is apparently not illegal......even if some officers want to act like it is.

[Scott B.]

Glen Reynolds, he of Instapundit fame, writes frequently about a due process right to film the police - in addition to a First Amendment right.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... id=2043907" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hopefully this absurd bill dies in the harsh light of common sense (okay, stop laughing).

[joe817]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[G.A. Heath]

First I completely agree with my friends in Law Enforcement that they need room to work without Kory Watkins types causing them problems. Second this bill in it's current form is most definitely not the way to do it. Third I see a number of issues with this bill that make it a total nightmare.

I have been encountered officers I do not know, or have been suspicious of, in the past and I have been on the phone with 911(verifying the officer in the unmarked car and no uniform is legit) when the officer approaches. Because of this I had the phone on speaker so the unknown officer could hear who I was talking to, everyone knows 911 records so I would have been in violation of this bill had it been law then.

I have been known to do some off-roading in my Jeep, and I have had GoPro Cameras mounted on it. They were recording when I was passed by a game warden and a sheriff's deputy between two areas at the event I was participating in. The cameras were still recording when I passed them when they were assisting another sheriff's deputy who had someone pulled over about 3/4 of a mile down the road. Both those instances would have been violations had this beel been law then.

My employer has a number of external security cameras that I am in charge of while at work, part of my job involves dealing with officers in relation to those cameras AND other issues my employer may need law enforcement for. Would I be in violation of this bill if it becomes law every time I have an officer walk within the specified distance while they are on duty?

Consider an Ex-Girlfriend of mine who is a realtor. She videos new property often setting off neighbours who call law enforcement or catch the attention of passing LEOs who check her out to make sure she wasn't casing the property.

All of these are potential violations of this bill, yet not one instance of cop watching is going on in any of them.

To make the bill manageable to the point I would not 100% oppose it this bill would need:
1. Provision to allow any party detained, or unable to leave the area, to record.
2. Replace the 25 foot provision with a provision that would allow an officer to require all parties to move back no more than 25 feet if the officer feels it is necessary for the safety of the officer, the party recording, or a third party (This keeps an officer from becoming a camera free zone while on duty).
3. Replace the CHL 100 foot provision with a provision that would allow the officer to disarm parties armed with modern, antique, or black powder replica firearms or require they move back no more than 100 feet if the officer feels it is necessary for the safety of the officer, the party recording, or a third party (This keeps an officer from becoming a camera free zone while on duty).
4. Provision to allow a party that is recording to continue recording should officers approach within the specified distances.
5. Exception for automatic, unmanned, or unattended recording devices.
6. Provision for vehicle mounted (temporary or permanent) recording systems that come within the specified distances.

[psijac]

This is in response to Kory Watkins and the OC marches, but it looks like it it aimed more at Watkins and his cop watch/block crowd. The issues I have is that they do not provide an exception for someone being stopped by law enforcement, they specifically add a penalty for possessing a firearm while recording, and no exception for a license holder who gets stopped while recording either.

I don't agree. It doesn't say carrying a gun, it says specifically licensed to carry a handgun under the authority of .....

You're correct, it expressly references CHLs. However, it most definitely is in response to Kory Watkins' COP Watch group and activities. While Kory doesn't have a CHL, the presumption is that many in his group do.

Chas.

When I first joined this forum just a few short years ago, I saw small references to a tiny group of people too vocal about the expansion of gun rights and i thought, that doesn't seem right maybe our legislators are thin skinned.

Oh how naive I was.