Texas state lawmaker wants to criminalize the filming of cops.

[johnhoftb]

Texas state Representative Jason Villalba (Republican representing district 114 located in Dallas) has introduced a bill which would make it a class B misdemeanor to record with 25 feet of officers, which extends to 100 feet if you have a handgun.

Media don't have this restriction, but are still restricted to within 10 feet,

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLoo...4R&Bill=HB2918

http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015/...-filming-cops/

http://blog.chron.com/bigjolly/2015/...nd-amendments/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...les-bill-rest/

The full text of the bill:

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT

relating to the prosecution of the offense of interference with public duties; increasing a penalty.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

SECTION 1.

Section 38.15, Penal Code, is amended by amending Subsections (b) and (e) and adding Subsections (f) and (g) to read as follows:

(b) An offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor, except that an offense under Subsection (a)(1) that is based on
conduct described by Subsection (f)(2) is a Class A misdemeanor.

(e)In this section:

(1) "Emergency" means a condition or circumstance in which an individual is or is reasonably believed by the person transmitting the communication to be in imminent danger of serious bodily injury or in which property is or is reasonably believed by the person transmitting the communication to be in imminent danger of damage or destruction.

(2) "News media" means:

(A) a radio or television station that holds a license issued by the Federal Communications Commission;

(B) a newspaper that is qualified under Section 2051.044 , Government Code, to publish legal notices or is a free newspaper of general circulation and that is published at least once a week and available and of interest to the general public in connection with the dissemination of news or public affairs; or

(C) a magazine that appears at a regular interval, that contains stories, articles, and essays by various writers, and that is available and of interest to the general public in connection with the dissemination of news or public affairs.

(f) For purposes of Subsection (a)(1), an interruption, disruption, impediment, or interference that occurs while a peace officer is performing a duty or exercising authority imposed or granted by law includes a person:

(1) filming, recording, photographing, or documenting the officer within 25 feet of the officer; or

(2) filming, recording, photographing, or documenting the officer within 100 feet of the officer while carrying a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code.

(g) It is a defense to prosecution for an offense under Subsection (a)(1) based on conduct described by Subsection (f)(2) that the interruption, disruption, impediment, or interference was caused by a person who, at the time of the offense, was:

(1) a news media employee acting in the course and scope of the person’s employment; or

(2) employed by or working with an organization or entity engaged in law enforcement activities.

SECTION 2.

The change in law made by this Act applies only to an offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act. An offense committed before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law in effect on the date the offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for that purpose. For purposes of this section, an offense was committed before the effective date of this Act if any element of the offense occurred before that date.

SECTION 3

This Act takes effect September 1, 2015.

[PC2]

A 25 foot radius is reasonable.

[vindicatorx]

I'm more than ok with this. you shouldn't be within 25 feet of a cop who is trying to do his job. You would be a distraction and possibly a liability.

[Venant]

Pretty sure that a state law doesn't overrule the supreme court

[Conspicuous Cultist]

A 25 foot radius is reasonable.

It leaves room for abuse though. What's stopping a policeman from walking to you when they notice you're with a camera?

If you:

Stay there, you're slammed with a crime

Back away, who knows? If he was hell bent on it he could've probably call after you and then take you down.

One cop could stay near the camera so it stays off while his other buddies do his usual things, with their gopros off and their dash cams off.

[vindicatorx]

Pretty sure that a state law doesn't overrule the supreme court

Other states already have this law so not sure why you would think a Supreme Court would give a shit.

[Bullettime]

I actually don't think this is unreasonable. I imagine with the cop issues in the media, this could be posing a bit of a problem where everyone wants to be up in the middle filming shit when he's trying to do his job. It's enough of a radius to keep out of their way but still film.

edit: Though Crissi below brings up a good point.

[Crissi]

It leaves room for abuse though. What's stop from a police from walking to you when they notice you're with a camera?

If you:

Stay there, you're slammed with a crime

Back away, who knows? If he was hell bent on it he could've probably call after you and then take you down.

It would also mean you would have to turn your camera off if you were pulled over.

So I don't see this standing at all.

[Spraxle]

Except that 25 foot rule is meant to stop people from filming stuff that cops shouldn't be doing. Eric Garner for example and we all know of others.

The police answer to the public not the other way around. They wouldn't need rules like this if they weren't afraid of people filming them doing shit they shouldn't be doing. That's what this boils down to.

Also as an aside I'm super sick of the Republican party and their shit. I'm a 'registered Republican' who voted Libertarian the last few go arounds, but seriously the Republican party is just so out of touch. They don't have a damn clue and it's disgusting. I know neither party does, but it feels like the 'pubs are putting their foot in the shit more often the not.

[vindicatorx]

It would also mean you would have to turn your camera off if you were pulled over.

So I don't see this standing at all.

Yeah missed that whole section on people would not be allowed to film their own interactions with the police part. yeah that I don't think is acceptable. I mean if it's just filming someone else sure but, until they have body cams I feel everyone should be able to record their interaction with the cops.

[Kasierith]

A citizen should have the right to protect himself against unlawful action through a recording device. This makes sense in terms of bystanders; it makes no sense at all in preventing someone from recording police attentions towards him. This is a pretty gross violation when taken in that regard.

[helmaroc]

Hmm as Crissi said, this wouldn't stand because of the whole car situations. Most convenient time to have your cam on you too so you don't get into an unlucky situation.

[Abajaba]

This is a law in the wrong direction. Make them accountable with always on surveillance first, then get back to me on measures or laws directing how far civilians need to be from them when they're at work.

[Deleted]

Lol its not obstruction if its a news agency wtf this is total bias.

http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015/...-filming-cops/

(A) a radio or television station that holds a license issued by the Federal Communications Commission;
(B) a newspaper that is qualified under Section 2051.044, Government Code, to publish legal notices or is a free newspaper of general circulation and that is published at least once a week and available and of interest to the general public in connection with the dissemination of news or public affairs; or
(C) a magazine that appears at a regular interval, that contains stories, articles, and essays by various writers, and that is available and of interest to the general public in connection with the dissemination of news or public affairs.

[Bakis]

GL with that bill, no way it will carry through given its obvious implications.

[johnhoftb]

Went ahead and added the full bill to the OP.

[Lolretadin]

A citizen should have the right to protect himself against unlawful action through a recording device. This makes sense in terms of bystanders; it makes no sense at all in preventing someone from recording police attentions towards him. This is a pretty gross violation when taken in that regard.

I think it makes sense such as in a case where an individual filming becomes detrimental to the officer's duties. Inversely, I think that people should be allowed to record their own encounters with police. It's a tough decision.

[Raptor With a Saber]

Its reasonable, and all the people with their heads in the ground expecting the worst. Keep them their and turn off your internet.

[Kaleredar]

I thought conservatives were for government accountability. I also thought that a number of them were always scared shitless of "massive government takeover."

Is the fact that these films have the potential to be used as evidence in favor of minorities skewing that "lofty goal" for these lawmakers? I can only speculate.

[Slicer299]

Other states already have this law so not sure why you would think a Supreme Court would give a shit.

Take two seconds to do a Google search. The courts have already ruled on this issue, and the public has an absolute right to film the police. That right was upheld in the lower courts and the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal to get those rulings overturned. Making those rulings the law of the end for the entire country.

Interfering with or preventing law enforcement from doing their job is already a crime. Creating new laws that specifically target people filming the police goes directly against those court rulings that say that you can absolutely film the police while they are on the job.

http://www.courtroomstrategy.com/201...taping-police/