Recording Police in Arizona: The 8-Foot Law Is Enjoined

House Bill 2319 passed in the 2022 regular session and was chaptered as Laws 2022, chapter 376, adding A.R.S. § 13-3732 to title 13, chapter 37. As written, subsection A makes it unlawful to knowingly keep video recording law enforcement activity within eight feet of it after a law enforcement officer gives a verbal warning that recording within eight feet is prohibited. Subsection E defines "law enforcement activity" as questioning a suspicious person, conducting an arrest, issuing a summons or enforcing the law, and handling an emotionally disturbed or disorderly person who is exhibiting abnormal behavior. Subsection D grades a violation as a class 3 misdemeanor, which under A.R.S. § 13-707(A)(3) carries up to thirty days in jail and under A.R.S. § 13-802(C) a fine of up to $500. Subsection C adds a disclaimer that the section "does not establish a right or authorize any person to make a video recording of law enforcement activity."

None of that is enforceable. In Arizona Broadcasters Association v. Brnovich, No. CV-22-01431-PHX-JJT, Judge John J. Tuchi of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona granted a preliminary injunction on September 9, 2022, ordering in terms that "The Court enjoins the enforcement of A.R.S. § 13-3732 pending further order." The section had been set to take effect on September 24, 2022, so it was blocked roughly two weeks before it could operate and has never been enforced. Attorney General Mark Brnovich responded to the injunction motion with a Notice of Non-Opposition; the Maricopa County Attorney and the Maricopa County Sheriff filed notices asserting nominal-defendant status and took no position. The court required no surety bond, finding no realistic likelihood of harm from enjoining the statute.

The reasoning matters if you are wondering whether the Legislature can simply try again. The court treated § 13-3732 as a content-based restriction because it singles out video recording of law enforcement activity for differential treatment, applied strict scrutiny, and held the section neither necessary nor narrowly drawn. It was over-inclusive because a person recording near an officer does not thereby interfere, and under-inclusive because it prohibits only video: audio recording, photographs and simple phone use at the same eight-foot distance were all left untouched. The court also noted that Arizona already has A.R.S. §§ 13-2402 and 13-2404 on the books to prevent interference with officers, so the new offense was not needed.

Because the Arizona Revised Statutes are published as enacted law rather than as a case-annotated code, § 13-3732 still prints in full on the Legislature's website with no note of the injunction. Reading it there gives the wrong answer. Treat the eight-foot rule as blocked: while the injunction stands, no Arizona officer or prosecutor may enforce it, and its text is best read as a record of what the Legislature tried rather than as a distance you must keep.

What does govern recording in Arizona is the wiretap chapter, and it works in your favour. A.R.S. § 13-3005(A)(2) makes it a class 5 felony to intentionally intercept a conversation or discussion at which you are not present without the consent of a party. A.R.S. § 13-3012(9) then exempts the interception of any wire, electronic or oral communication "if the interception is effected with the consent of a party to the communication or a person who is present during the communication." Arizona is therefore a one-party consent state, and recording an encounter you are part of, or one you are standing at, is exempt on its face. Section 13-3012(6)(b) separately exempts the interception of radio transmitted by any government, law enforcement, civil defense, private land mobile or public safety communication system, including police and fire systems, that is readily accessible to the general public, so listening to a scanner is lawful too.

The real limits are the interference offenses, and Arizona has drawn them narrowly. A.R.S. § 13-2402(A) reaches obstructing a governmental function or the enforcement of the penal law only "by using or threatening to use violence or physical force," and subsection B carves out obstructing the making of an arrest entirely; it is a class 1 misdemeanor. A.R.S. § 13-2409 requires bribery, misrepresentation, intimidation or force or threats of force, and is a class 5 felony. Resisting arrest under A.R.S. § 13-2508 does reach "passive resistance," defined in subsection C as a nonviolent physical act or failure to act intended to impede, hinder or delay the effecting of an arrest, but only where an arrest is actually being made; passive resistance is a class 1 misdemeanor while force-based resisting is a class 6 felony. Filming from a distance with no physical involvement fits none of those elements.

§ 13-3732 while the September 9, 2022 injunction in Arizona Broadcasters Association v. Brnovich stands. § 13-802(C). Actual exposure for a bystander with a camera runs through other sections instead. § 13-2402 is a class 1 misdemeanor, up to six months and $2,500, but only where you use or threaten violence or physical force, and it expressly does not apply to obstructing the making of an arrest. § 13-2508 is a class 1 misdemeanor for passive resistance and a class 6 felony where physical force or a substantial risk of injury is involved. § 13-2409 is a class 5 felony but requires bribery, misrepresentation, intimidation or force or threats of force. § 13-3005(A)(2).