PHOENIX (AP) – Arizona governor has signed a law restricting how the public can make police videos at a time when there is growing pressure in the United States for greater transparency in the application of the law.
Civil rights and media groups opposed the measure signed Thursday by Republican Gov. Doug Ducey. The law makes it illegal for Arizona to knowingly record police officers 8 feet (2.5 meters) or closer without the permission of an officer.
You can also order someone privately owned with the owner’s consent to stop recording if a police officer discovers that you are interfering or that the area is unsafe. Penalty is a misdemeanor that would probably result in a fine without jail time.
There must be a law that protects officers from people who “have a very poor trial or have sinister motives,” said Republican Rep. John Kavanagh, a sponsor of the bill.
“I am pleased that a very reasonable law has been enacted that promotes the safety of police officers and those involved in police stalls and spectators,” Kavanagh said on Friday. “It promotes the safety of everyone, but still allows people to reasonably record police activity as their right.”
The move comes nearly a year after the U.S. Department of Justice began a widespread investigation into the Phoenix police force to examine whether officers have been using excessive force and abusing homelessness. It is similar to other investigations opened in recent months in Minneapolis and Louisville.
The Phoenix Police Department, which oversees the country’s fifth-largest city, has been criticized in recent years for its use of force, which disproportionately affects black and Native American residents.
The law has left unbelieving opponents like KM Bell, an attorney for the staff of the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona.
Federal appeals courts have already ruled that taxing police is “a clearly established right,” according to Bell.
The law will not work in real life scenarios.
“We are talking about people who are in public and a place where they have the right to be. We are not talking about, as if someone enters the National Security Agency, “Bell said.
Kavanagh, who was a police officer for 20 years, amended the legislation to apply to certain types of police actions, such as interrogating suspects and encounters involving mental or behavioral health issues.
The law also makes exceptions for people who are the direct object of police interaction. They can film as long as they are not arrested or searched. Someone who is in a car stopped by the police or is questioned can also film the encounter.
“These exceptions were based on the contributions of all kinds of people, including the ACLU,” he said.
Two years ago rumors about anti-police groups deliberately approaching officers while filming inspired drafts of law. There was a risk that an officer would be injured or a suspect would escape or discard evidence, Kavanagh said.
Reverend Jarrett Maupin, a Phoenix activist, has reported victims of excessive force by police. Some of the cases received more publicity because the video captured by viewers was uploaded online.
In one case, a black couple had police officers point guns at them in front of their children in May 2019 after their young daughter grabbed a doll from a store without them knowing it. They received a $ 475,000 settlement from the city.
Maupin believes the law is a tactic to help police avoid liability.
“Proximity is not a luxury when it comes to documenting the actions of agents involved in acts of brutality,” Maupin said. Sometimes victims and spectators have no choice but to be in the vicinity now banned by the bill. “
Bell said other states are unlikely to follow suit to limit police registration directly from questions about constitutionality.
The new law makes no exceptions for the press.
Media groups, including The Associated Press, said the measure poses serious constitutional problems. They signed a letter from the National Press Photographers Association, or NPPA, in opposition to the bill.
Setting unique conditions such as “arbitrary distances” of 2.5 meters to film police simply doesn’t work, said Mickey Osterreicher, the NPPA’s attorney general. Nor is it clear if someone is breaking the law if an agent approaches within a few feet.
“What happens when you find yourself in situations like the ones we saw during all the protests of the last two years, where you have several people with cameras? We’re not just talking about journalists,” Osterreicher said. “And you have several police officers. Will everyone run with a ruler? “
Mobile phone cameras have transformed police, with one of the most important examples being the assassination of George Floyd in 2020, but Kavanagh said a law like the one in Arizona would not have had an impact as the video in this case was made from a greater distance.
Osterreicher argued that a police officer could invoke the law even if the person filming is far enough away.
But that didn’t happen in the Floyd case.
“Fortunately, these agents of all the wrong things they did, the only thing they didn’t do was tell him to turn off the camera or try to interfere with his recording,” Osterreicher said.