If I was a bystander, I'd certainly want to know that a cop wasn't allowed to take two steps towards me, declare that I am now within the 8 ft barrier, and am now subject to assault and arrest unless I delete the recording.
Don't make laws unless you've thoroughly thought about how they can be abused by bad actors.
I have not read the law myself, but if the summary is accurate, it seems to suggest police moving towards the bystander does not count.
https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/HB2319S.pdf
You can't record as a bystander within 8' of law enforcement activity, defined as "QUESTIONING A SUSPICIOUS PERSON. 33 2. CONDUCTING AN ARREST, ISSUING A SUMMONS OR ENFORCING THE LAW. 34 3. HANDLING AN EMOTIONALLY DISTURBED OR DISORDERLY PERSON WHO IS 35 EXHIBITING ABNORMAL BEHAVIOR. "
If you're the subject of activity, e.g. they deem you as a suspicious person and move towards you, you may record.
You may record, but you will not be able to after they handcuff you. So, they'll claim they were establishing a perimeter for the initial activity, that you refused to move away or stop filming from that perimeter, making your recording up to that point illegal, and then they'll detain you for this offense, handcuffing you to prevent you from filming.
Or they'll just take your phone under civil asset forfeiture laws, as it was involved in illegal activity (filming a police officer from too close by).
So this law puts the wheels in motion for lawful seizure of these phones.
You won't find much recent prior seizures in Arizona because Arizona cops can't fulfill a lawful seizure without a crime, and prior to now recording a public official performing their duty was basically never a criminal act.
If this was actually about the safety of officers, there would be no need to mention recording -- they would simply limit all bystanders from being within 8' of such activity whether they're recording or not. Since it is about recording, we know it is just about recording, and not actual officer safety.
Except in cop "logic" it does. Because once they move on someone filming, that person is now within 8 feet and thereby a "criminal" - worrying about the exception to the law is for prosecutors to do later. The filmer is a threat, because cops are juiced up on paranoid delusions that everyone that doesn't fall into line and salute them is out to attack them. And therefore the cop justifies themselves preemptively attacking the filmer, smashing their camera, etc, to get the situation "under control".
When the incident actually sees court (persecution of the victim of course, cops themselves rarely end up as defendants for their own crimes), the cop will cry about how scared they were etc (with a manly facade) and how their job is so hard, and they have to make quick decisions in the heat of the moment, blah blah blah. Even if the victim does spend enough on attorneys to successfully defend themselves legally, they'll still suffer the injuries from being attacked, their broken phone, other possessions "lost" (stolen) by the police, time and money spend defending themselves, etc.
Like every other recent Republican legislative dog whistle, it's purporting to address a problem that simply does not commonly exist - as many others have pointed out, interfering with police officers is already illegal. This law does not create a clearer delineation, but rather is focused on the specific act of filming to add uncertainty and undermine that individual freedom despite the anticonstitutionality of doing so. The only reason the exceptions are even there is to make it sound like equity has been considered, but they're really just afterthoughts to the main goal of increasing the arbitrary and capricious power of the state.
Have you not seen any "police encounter" videos?
Here is one example: police will lie to you about what is legal or illegal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UQKkYWDUQ4
Never trust a police officer, local, state, or federal law enforcement agent. Never volunteer any information to a police officer. Just say these magic words, "I want a lawyer." Do not say anything else.
Well we might need to identify ourselves with the police? I am not a lawyer.
there's an excellent description of this in the Illustrated Guide to Criminal Procedure about Miranda, that explains exactly why you need both, and what that means.
A police officer is standing there doing crowd control, that's not included.