Rep. John Kavananagh’s Unconstitutional Bill To Restrict Video Of Cops Committing Crimes

Troll Boy, Rep. John Kavanagh, doesn’t like the recent trend of juries holding dirty cops guilty of murder based upon cell phone video evidence from citizen bystanders exercsing their First Amendment right to film a felony crime in progress. (I would add that some of the video evidence comes directly from the dirty cop’s own body-cam video, if it was not turned off in violation of policy).

Because Troll Boy wants dirty cops to be able to kill unarmed individuals – oh, let’s just say it, Black men – with impunity. What he is demonstrating is his hatred for the Black Lives Matter movement after George Floyd was murdered by a dirty cop. What he is really saying is that he is perfecty OK with this:

The Arizona Mirror reports, Ex-cop lawmaker wants to restrict recording videos of cops:

Videos like those that captured police killing George Floyd and Eric Garner would be illegal in Arizona under a new law proposed by a retired police officer.

A bill proposed by Fountain Hills Republican Rep. John Kavanagh, who spent decades as an officer for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, would make it unlawful for someone to film police from up to 15 feet away while officers are engaged in “law enforcement activity.” Constitutional experts and civil rights advocates say the proposed law would be blatantly 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 [yes he is],” Dan Barr, an attorney who specializes in media and First Amendment cases, told the Arizona Mirror. “This would make the recording of the murder of George Floyd illegal.”

House Bill 2319 is similar to a bill Kavanah proposed in 2016. This year’s version considers a violation a “petty offense.” But if a person “fails to comply with a verbal warning” or has been previously convicted for filming police officers, they would face a class 3 misdemeanor and up to 30 days in jail.

Kavanagh said he initially got the idea to run the bill because he had seen stories of “groups” of people going around filming police. [Where, on Fox News or OANN?] He said the legislation didn’t originate with any police union or advocacy group. [Not buying it. Phoenix Police Unions almost certainly requested it.]

Last year the U.S. Department of Justice opened an investigation of the Phoenix Police Department. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ANNOUNCES INVESTIGATION OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX AND THE PHOENIX POLICE DEPARTMENT: “This investigation will assess all types of use of force by PhxPD officers, including deadly force. The investigation will also seek to determine, among other things, whether PhxPD engages in retaliatory activity against people for conduct protected by the First Amendment; whether PhxPD engages in discriminatory policing.” “The investigation will include a comprehensive review of PhxPD policies, training, supervision, and force investigations, as well as PhxPD’s systems of accountability, including misconduct complaint intake, investigation, review, disposition, and discipline.”

Kavanagh disagrees with his critics, saying that the bill is not unconstitutional and that people are still able to record police interactions at what he says is a safer distance for both police and bystanders.

“It distracts the cop against the person they are making enforcement against,” Kavanagh said of people videotaping law enforcement. “If I ban videotaping, then it would be unconstitutional.”

For the record, none of the individuals who recorded the murder of George Floyd “interfered” with the cops who murdered him (something they testifed at trial still haunts them to this day. They did not try to save his life.) They at best “distracted” this dirty cop from committing murder by verbally pleading for George Floyd’s life. OMG! What a horrible thoughtless thing to do!

The Arizona Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union disagrees.

“Simply filming them is not interference,” said K.M. Bell, ACLU Arizona’s Smart Justice campaign strategist. “In terms of protecting the officers, if someone is standing there holding a cell phone it does not endanger the officer in any way.”

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.

Like the officers who killed Eric Garner after accusing him of selling “loosies” (single cigarettes without a tax stamp) in violation of New York state law.

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.

Changing the law as Kavanagh wants would serve to protect corrupt police officers, Barr said.

“The people who would benefit from this would be the police doing illegal things,” he said. “It is attempting to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.”

A Troll Boy specialty.

Kavanagh contends that the bill is about officer and public safety, making sure that those who do want to film do so from a safe distance and don’t distract law enforcement from their own duties.

Kavanagh recalled a story of when he was an officer arresting a suspect and another person was interfering with the scene, which distracted him so he didn’t see the suspect dump a large quantity of drugs. He said another officer did notice and pointed it out to him.

“Evidence can be lost, the cop can be assaulted,” Kavanagh said.

He also tried to spin the 15-foot limit as a good thing for those filming cops: “I think you get a better picture from 15 feet away. You get the full scene.”

Seriously, Dude? You are shameless.

Just out of curiosity, after all these years that Arizonans have been subjected to this racist asshole in the legislature, has anyone in the media ever thought to FOIL his disciplinary records from his glory days with the Port Authority for citizen complaints and any disciplinary actions? I’ll bet this would be pretty revealing.

The Arizona Republic is a partner of USA Today, why hasn’t The Republic done this? See, New York police disciplinary records: Your questions answered:

Since the launch of USA Today’s New York police disciplinary record database on Dec. 6, 2021 it has been viewed tens of thousands of times. Not surprising perhaps, given that the information it collates has been largely inaccessible to the public for decades.

We also actively encourage your questions and comments, and answer the first round of them in this article.

Keep the conversation going by submitting a question using our submission form below, or by emailing policerecords@democratandchronicle.com.

USA Today welcomes corrections or clarifications of the files in the database. 

Are police disciplinary records exempted from the Freedom Information Act?

Police disciplinary records were explicitly made accessible under the state’s Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) with the repeal of Section 50-a and the addition to the FOIL of clear definitions around what constitutes “law enforcement disciplinary records.”

According to FOIL, law enforcement materials that are now considered a matter of public record include:

• • • the complaints, allegations, and charges against an employee;
    • the name of the employee complained of or charged;
    • the transcript of any disciplinary trial or hearing, including any exhibits introduced at such trial or hearing;
    • the disposition of any disciplinary proceeding; and
    • the final written opinion or memorandum supporting the disposition and discipline imposed including the agency’s complete factual findings and its analysis of the conduct and appropriate discipline of the covered employee.

New York is one of about a dozen U.S. states that enable this kind of access. Other states impose their own restrictions to access for different extents.

* * *

For many years, it has been very difficult to get police misconduct and personnel records. Section 50-a of the New York Public Officers Law, which was initially intended to protect certain materials associated with promotion decisions, had increasingly been used by police departments to block the release of anyrecords related to an officer’s personnel files or misconduct.

A section of the law was repealed in June 2020 with the intention of granting the public access to these materials. We are now providing access to them as a reporting priority, because for decades they remained out of the public’s view.

[T]he state’s Freedom of Information Law is in place in order to allow the public the right to certain information that can help the state’s residents better understand how the government is working and how their tax dollars are being spent.

“The people’s right to know the process of governmental decision-making and to review the documents and statistics leading to determinations is basic to our society. Access to such information should not be thwarted by shrouding it with the cloak of secrecy or confidentiality. The legislature therefore declares that government is the public’s business and that the public, individually and collectively and represented by a free press, should have access to the records of government in accordance with the provisions of this article.”

By taking on this project and insisting on the public release of these materials, the USA Today Network New York is acting on the responsibility of the free press to serve as the conduit between the government and the public.

How far back will these records go? Will the records of former officers also be available?

The requests that the D&C and its partners made to policing agencies requested records dated back to 1970, in order to capture materials that have been created since the 50-a provision was first implemented. These files, if they exist would include the records of former officers.

However, not all agencies still hold, or are willing to release the materials that could be considered responsive to this request. Some agencies have destroyed records in accordance with the state records retention and archival schedules. Others are refusing to release records for complaints that the internal disciplinary body deemed “unsubstantiated” or to release records that were created from June 2020. These objections are the subject of legal proceedings.

I want to file a FOIL request. How do I do that?

Each agency in New York is supposed to have guidance available to help residents direct their own FOIL requests. If you cannot find information on the agency’s website describing the best place to which to file a FOIL request, try calling the agency and asking.

Be aware, though, that each agency is entitled to charge a fee for search time and copy fees, so when contacting the agency, it would be worth also asking for a copy of the agency’s fee schedule.

Within five business days of receiving a request, New York agencies are supposed to either release the record, deny the request, or provide some estimate for when release of the record can be expected.

If an agency fails to do so, the requester can submit an appeal to “the head, chief executive or governing body of the entity,” and that person has 10 business days to explain whether the denial will be upheld or why the records should be released.

If an agency still denies the release of a record, the requester may file an Article 78 proceeding in court. 

In addition to filing appeals, requesters can initiate challenges for the release of records in court.

How do I access the database?

Search the database:New York police disciplinary records

The database will be updated on a daily basis, or more frequently as new records are released.

About this project

USA TODAY Network New York, has partnered with MuckRock, the Brechner Center for Freedom of Information, University at Buffalo School of Law Civil Rights & Transparency Clinic and Syracuse University to ensure that the public has full access to these records as outlined in the legislation.

What Arizona really needs is a FOIL law like New York’s.