Looks like Troll Boy, Keystone Kop John Kavanagh’s bill to prevent citizens from filming police committing crimes, like Derek Chauvin, recently sentenced to 21 years in federal prison for violating George Floyd’s civil rights (Chauvin was convicted last year in a state court on murder and manslaughter charges related to Floyd’s May 2020 death and sentenced to 22 1/2 years), has made the national news.
The Hill reports, Arizona to outlaw recording police within 8 feet:
Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey (R) signed a bill into law on Wednesday banning people from recording police officers within 8 feet of a “law enforcement activity.”
The law states that witnesses to a law enforcement activity cannot make a recording if they know or reasonably should know that such an activity is occurring and if an officer has given them a verbal warning that they are not allowed to record within 8 feet.
Like these Minneapolis residents?
A law enforcement activity is defined as questioning a “suspicious” person, conducting an arrest, issuing a summons or enforcing the law, or handling an “emotionally disturbed or disorderly person” exhibiting “abnormal” behavior.
The law also states that someone who is the subject of a law enforcement activity and the occupants of a vehicle stopped by police may record their interactions as long as it does not interfere with “lawful police actions.”
Like Diamond Reynolds who used her cellphone to broadcast via Facebook Live as her bloodied boyfriend, Philando Castile, lay dying next to her in the car after having been shot multiple times by a policeman?
Violating the law will be considered a misdemeanor.
The Arizona Republic reported that the law will go into effect on Sept. 24.
State Rep. John Kavanagh (R), who sponsored the legislation, argued in an op-ed, I’m not saying you can’t video police. Just stay back a few feet in some situations, that giving police a “buffer” is necessary, as some groups who are hostile to police follow officers to record police incidents. He said these people can get “dangerously close” to potentially violent encounters.
“Police officers have no way of knowing whether the person approaching is an innocent bystander or an accomplice of the person they’re arresting who might assault them,” he said. “Consequently, officers become distracted and while turning away from the subject of the encounter, the officers could be assaulted by that subject or that subject could discard evidence or even escape.”
Kavanagh said the quality of videos showing potential excessive force incidents would not be affected because of the modern sophistication of cellphone cameras, adding that a video taken from farther away would likely show more context.
Video recordings of police interactions with civilians have been critical pieces of evidence in some cases where a person was killed, like the 2020 murder of George Floyd by a now-former Minneapolis police officer.
To its credit, the Arizona Republic published an editorial opinion encouraging Gov. Doug Ducey to veto the bill, which he ignored. Gov. Doug Ducey should veto a bill making it a crime for many to film police:
No good will come from making it a crime to film police officers at close range.
If anything, such a restriction would only deepen the broad distrust between police officers and some parts of the community they’re sworn to protect.
Officers of the law have an important job to do, and they shouldn’t be afraid to do so in a transparent and open way.
Filming police activity has often become the only tool the public has to expose bad behavior and to pursue justice. The killing of George Floyd that sparked national protests is just one of many examples of that extreme police wrongdoing caught on tape.
Bystander videos of Floyd became instrumental in convicting former Minneapolis Police Officer Derek Chauvin of murder.
HB 2319 may be unconstitutional
Arizona Republicans revived and ultimately pushed through House Bill 2319, which makes it illegal to film police officers within 8 feet of law enforcement activities. Doing so could land someone in jail for 30 days.
It’s now up to Gov. Doug Ducey.
The governor should know that legal experts have serious concerns over the constitutionality of the legislation. He should veto it because it’s the right thing to do and because he would be saving taxpayers money by avoiding litigation.
To parphrase the Shingrix ads, “Ducey doesn’t care.” He will not be governor when media organizations and First Amendment organizations bring the constitutional challenge to this law and win their case in court next year. Our lawless Republican legislature has routinely passed unconstitutional bills over the years, often over the recommendations of staff legal counsel, only to have the courts strike down the laws, sometimes years later.
Rep. John Kavanagh, who sponsored the legislation, initially proposed to ban videotaping within 15 feet. He later amended that to 8 feet.
The legislation also offers some exceptions to film an encounter within 8 feet. Those directly involved with a police interaction film may be allowed to film it as long as they don’t interfere with police actions.
People within enclosed structures on private property where police activity is occurring also may be able to film, as well as occupants of a vehicle stopped by police – again, as long as they don’t interfere with police actions.
But that’s still not enough.
Gov. Ducey should veto it
Legal scholars and civil rights leaders say the legislation is unconstitutional.
“Courts have upheld that people have a constitutional right to videotape police activity, and now to say that it is illegal is just idiotic,” Dan Barr, a lawyer who specializes in media and First Amendment cases, told the Arizona Mirror and other media outlets. “This would make the recording of the murder of George Floyd illegal.”
That’s worrisome. Without that video, the death of George Floyd would have been swept under the rug and justice would have never been achieved.
The public has a constitutional right to record police activity in public places. Ducey is smart to know that and should act in the best interest of Arizonans.
He’d be wise to veto HB 2319.
Doug Ducey has never demonstrated wisdom during his eight years as governor. It was a foolish thing to expect.
See you in September … let the lawsuits begin!
Discover more from Blog for Arizona
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
UPDATE: 10th Circuit Court of Appeals rules people have a right protected by the First Amendment to film police while they work. “Another U.S. Appeals Court Upholds Right To Record Police”, https://www.huffpost.com/entry/another-us-appeals-court-upholds-right-to-record-police_n_62cd55abe4b0451684679ffa
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver ruling came in the case of a YouTube journalist and blogger who claimed that a suburban Denver officer blocked him from recording a 2019 traffic stop. Citing decisions from the other courts over about two decades as well as First Amendment principles, the 10th Circuit said the right to record police was clearly established at the time and reinstated the lawsuit of the blogger, Abade Irizarry.
A three-judge panel from the court said that “Mr. Irizarry’s right to film the police falls squarely within the First Amendment’s core purposes to protect free and robust discussion of public affairs, hold government officials accountable, and check abuse of power.”
While bystander video has played a vital role in uncovering examples of police misconduct in recent years, including in the killing of George Floyd, whether or not it is a right is still being determined in courts and debated by lawmakers.
The nation’s five other appeals courts have not ruled yet on the right to record police and the U.S. Supreme Court would likely not get involved in the issue unless appeals courts were on opposite sides of the issue, said Alan Chen, a University of Denver law professor and one of the First Amendment experts also urged the appeals court to rule in favor of the right of people to record police.
[U.S.] government lawyers intervened in Irizarry’s appeal to support the public’s right to record police in the 10th Circuit, which oversees four western and two midwestern states — Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico and Utah — as well as parts of Yellowstone National Park that lie in Idaho and Montana.
Irizarry’s lawyer, Andrew Tutt, said the ruling will protect the right of every citizen under the court’s jurisdiction to record police carrying out their duties.
“Today’s decision also adds to the consensus of authority on this important issue, bringing us a step closer to the day when this right is recognized and protected everywhere in the United States,” he said.
In his lawsuit, Irizarry said he was filming a police traffic stop in the city of Lakewood when he claimed Officer Ahmed Yehia stood in front of the camera to block Irizarry from recording. The officer shined a flashlight into Irizarry’s camera and the camera of another blogger. Then Yehia left the two, got into his cruiser and sped the cruiser toward the two bloggers, the lawsuit said. The cruiser swerved before reaching the bloggers and they were not hit, according to the lawsuit.
Even though the court said the right to record police existed in 2019, the ruling will mostly have an impact going forward since lawsuits for police misconduct must be brought within two or three years in most states, Chen said.
John Kavanagh is helping cover for dirty cops.
He was a cop in New Jersey, so there you go.
Cover-up Kavanagh is trying to hide things from Americans, the people who have provided him with every paycheck he’s ever gotten, as far as I can tell.
What a parasite!
You know who doesn’t have anything to hide? RAICESTEXAS dot org.
RAICES provides free or low cost legal help to immigrants.
It’s fun to donate in Honor of Arizona Rep John Kavanah, partly because it’s a good thing to do, and partly because it makes his left eye twitch uncontrollably.
Troll Boy made the Big Time natonal news:
New York Times. “Arizona Law Bans People From Recording Police Within Eight Feet”, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/09/us/arizona-recording-police-8-feet.html
Many civil rights groups and news media organizations have criticized the measure, which comes after the predominance of cellphone cameras increased public documentation of police activity[.]
Alan Chen, a law professor at the University of Denver, said there were several outstanding questions about the law’s enforcement, including how people should respond if an officer moves toward them even though they were recording from more than eight feet away.
“It might deter them from actually recording or might make them back up even further than the eight feet that the law requires,” Mr. Chen said. “There’s certainly some First Amendment concerns here.”
The U.S. Supreme Court has not yet ruled on whether recording a video of a police officer in public while they are on duty is protected under the First Amendment. The action is recognized as a constitutional right in most federal appeals courts, including the Ninth Circuit, which covers Arizona.
Mr. Chen said that he expected the U.S. Supreme Court would hear a case on the right to record the police in the next several terms. “It is certainly going in the trend of courts recognizing it as an important tool for holding police accountable for misconduct,” he said.
[T]he National Press Photographers Association sent a letter to Mr. Kavanagh in February that said the bill violated constitutional free speech and press protections. The New York Times Company was one of more than 20 media organizations that signed the letter, which said that the law would be “unworkable” at protests and demonstrations.
The A.C.L.U. of Arizona wrote on Twitter that the law would make it more difficult to hold police officers accountable for misconduct and chilled “the use of the public’s most effective tool against police wrongdoing.”
The Washington Post reports, “New Arizona law criminalizes filming police from less than 8 feet away”, https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/07/08/arizona-police-recordings-8-feet/
In an era where cellphone cameras have proved to be instrumental in capturing police encounters and holding law enforcement officers accountable, critics say the law limits people’s right to record in public places.
“A blanket restriction is a violation of the First Amendment,” Stephen D. Solomon, director of the Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute at New York University who teaches First Amendment law, told The Washington Post.
More than 60 percent of the U.S. population lives in states — including Arizona — in which federal appeals courts have recognized the First Amendment right to record police officers performing their duties in public, according to a citizen’s guide to recording police from NYU’s First Amendment Watch.
“Who’s to say that 8 feet is the appropriate distance? It might be under some circumstances, but in other circumstances, not,” he said, questioning how such a law would be enforced amid a street demonstration where crowds of people with cellphones are surrounded by law enforcement officers.
Solomon said the new law is going to have a “chilling effect.”
“If you know the limit is 8 feet, you might stay 15 or 20 feet away, or you may not record at all, because you’re concerned police are going to take you into custody,” he said.
The Associated Press reports, “In era of transparency, Arizona law limits filming police”, https://apnews.com/article/police-arizona-phoenix-doug-ducey-e8121bcf9c375c17614b1b61857ec082
(excerpts)
Arizona’s governor has signed a law that restricts how the public can video police at a time when there’s growing pressure across the U.S. for greater law enforcement transparency.
Civil rights and media groups opposed the measure that Republican Gov. Doug Ducey signed Thursday. The law makes it illegal in Arizona to knowingly video police officers 8 feet (2.5 meters) or closer without an officer’s permission.
[T]he move comes nearly a year after the U.S. Department of Justice launched a widespread probe into the police force in Phoenix to examine whether officers have been using excessive force and abusing people experiencing homelessness. It’s similar to other investigations opened in recent months in Minneapolis and Louisville.
The Phoenix Police Department, which oversees the nation’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 opponents like K.M. Bell, staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, incredulous.
Federal appellate courts already have ruled that recording police is “a clearly established right,” according to Bell.
Federal appellate courts already have ruled that recording police is “a clearly established right,” according to Bell.
The law won’t work in real-life scenarios.
“We’re talking about people being in public and a place they have a right to be. We’re not talking about, like somebody breaking into the (National Security Agency),” Bell said.
[T]he Rev. Jarrett Maupin, a Phoenix activist, has represented victims of excessive force by police. Some of the cases received more publicity because video captured by bystanders was posted 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 took a doll from a store without their knowledge. They received a $475,000 settlement from the city.
Maupin believes the law is a tactic to help police avoid responsibility.
“Proximity is not a luxury in terms of documenting the actions of officers who engage in acts of brutality,” Maupin said. Sometimes the victims and the bystanders have no choice but to be within the proximity that the bill now prohibits.”
Bell said it’s unlikely that other states might follow suit to limit police recording directly given questions about constitutionality.
The new law doesn’t make exceptions for the press.
Media groups including The Associated Press said the measure raises serious constitutional issues. They signed onto a letter from the National Press Photographers Association, or NPPA, in opposition to the bill.
Setting one-size-fits-all conditions like “arbitrary distances” of 8 feet (2.5 meters) for filming police just doesn’t work, said Mickey Osterreicher, general counsel for the NPPA. It’s also unclear if someone is breaking the law if an officer approaches them within a few feet.
“What happens when you’re in situations like we saw during all of the protests for the past couple of years, where you have multiple people with cameras? We’re not just talking about journalists,” Osterreicher said. “And you’ve got multiple police officers. Is everybody going to be running around with a ruler?”
The Arizona Mirror reports, “Arizona has a new ‘blatantly unconstitutional’ ban on filming cops up close”, https://www.azmirror.com/blog/arizona-has-a-new-blatantly-unconstitutional-ban-on-filming-cops-up-close/
Arizonans who are within eight feet of a police officer while filming them can be thrown in jail for up to 30 days under a new law that Gov. Doug Ducey signed this week.
Whether it stays on the books will be up to the courts, said a Phoenix attorney.
“It’s blatantly unconstitutional,” First Amendment attorney Dan Barr told the Arizona Mirror. “There are already laws that prevent police from hindering police or interfering with police in their duties.”
Barr said he expects the bill to be struck down when it is challenged in court, either by someone outright challenging the law itself or by someone who has been prosecuted under the law who challenges it.
“[T]his has a chill on First Amendment rights on journalists to do their jobs,” Barr said. “It gives a weapon to the cops to tell journalists, ‘Turn off your cameras.’”
Filming of police has played an integral role in helping journalists and researchers learn the breadth of how law enforcement use “cover charges” to justify the use of excessive force.
The term is often used by defense attorneys to describe the charges used by police to cover up bad behavior or explain away the use of excessive force. In Chicago, it was found that two out of every three times the Chicago Police Department used force since 2004, they arrested the person on one of these types of charges. And a 2021 ProPublica investigation found in Jefferson Parish, La., 73% of the time someone was arrested on a “cover charge” alone, they were Black.
“When the legislature and the governor pass such laws, I wish they were liable for the attorney fees that were spent to strike down such laws,” Barr lamented.