Arizona’s governor has signed a measure into law that bans people from recording videos within eight feet of police activity, undermining efforts to increase transparency around law enforcement operations.
The law, signed by Gov. Doug Ducey on Wednesday, takes effect in September. Many civil rights groups and news media organizations criticized the measure, which comes as the prevalence of cell phone cameras increased public documentation of police activity, including in the high-profile police killings of George Floyd in Minneapolis and Eric Garner in Staten Island, New York.
State Rep. John Kavanagh, the bill’s sponsor, said there was little reason for bystanders to be less than eight feet from an on-duty police officer and that the law would keep people from approaching dangerous situations and prevent them from interfering with police work .
Under the law, it is illegal for someone to record law enforcement officers if the person is within eight feet of an area where the person knows or “reasonably” should know that law enforcement activity is taking place, or if they receive a verbal warning from an officer to the rule.
Law enforcement activity can include questioning a “suspicious” person, making an arrest or dealing with a person who violates public order, according to the bill’s text. The offense is a misdemeanor with a potential penalty of up to 30 days in jail and fines of up to $500.
There are exceptions for people on private property, in a vehicle stopped by police, or those who are the subject of police contact, as long as they do not interfere with officers’ actions. There are no exceptions for journalists.
Alan Chen, a law professor at the University of Denver, said there are several unresolved questions about the law’s enforcement, including how people should react if a police officer moves toward them, even though they are recording from more than eight feet away.
“It may deter them from recording or it may cause them to go back even further than the eight feet that the law requires,” Mr. Chen said. “There are certainly some First Amendment concerns here.”
The US Supreme Court has yet to rule on whether videotaping a police officer in public while on duty is protected by the First Amendment. The action has been recognized as a constitutional right in most federal appeals courts, including the Ninth Circuit, which covers Arizona.
Mr. Chen said he expected the US Supreme Court to hear a case on the right to record police within the next few terms. “There is certainly a tendency for courts to recognize it as an important tool for holding police accountable for misconduct,” he said.
Cell phone videos of deadly police encounters recorded by civilians have drawn widespread attention and have been prominently displayed in courtrooms, although they do not always result in charges against officers.
Darnella Frazier was 17 when she used her cell phone to record video of white police officer Derek Chauvin kneeling on George Floyd’s neck, killing him. Her video contradicts Minneapolis police’s initial, inaccurate description of the death.
Video of Eric Garner dying in a police chokehold in 2014, recorded by his friend Ramsey Orta, also went viral, but a Staten Island grand jury declined to indict the officer who used the chokehold, Daniel Pantaleo.
Mr. Cavanagh, a Republican, said in an op-ed in The Arizona Republic in March that he proposed the bill because police officials had contacted him to express concern about “police-hostile groups.”
Mr Kavanagh said he had responded to criticism of an earlier version of the bill by shrinking the no-go zone to eight feet from 15 feet and by allowing police sites to record video.
“I can think of no reason why any responsible person should come within eight feet of a police officer engaged in a hostile or potentially hostile encounter,” Mr. Kavanagh wrote. “Such an approach is unreasonable, unnecessary and dangerous and should be outlawed.”
The National Association of Press Photographers sent a letter to Mr. Kavanagh in February saying the bill violated constitutional freedom of speech and press protections. The New York Times Company was one of more than 20 media organizations that signed the letter, which said the law would be “unenforceable” during protests and demonstrations.
The ACLU of Arizona tweeted that the law would make it harder to hold police officers accountable for wrongdoing and chill “the use of society’s most effective tool against police misconduct.”
Add Comment