Mediaboss Marketing

A bill passed by the Arizona House this week that would ban people from taking close-rangerecordings of police without permission has raised concerns of violatingpeople's First Amendment rights.

House Bill 2319 initially restricted people within 15 feet of law enforcement activity from recording police without permission. It was later amended to 8 feet to addressconcerns it would be unconstitutional, bill sponsorRep. John Kavanagh (R-Fountain Hills)said at a committee hearing on Monday.

"Based on comments made by people testifyingin committee and by my working withour Rules attorneysand their intern, I received a lot of goodinput to make this bill conform with the Constitution," he said.

"The major changes areI went from 15 feet to 8 feetand that is based upon 8 feet being established bythe U.S.SupremeCourt as being a reasonable distance as they applied it to peopleentering and leaving abortionclinics when faced with protesters, they said that was a good balance," Kavanagh continued.

Other amendments to the bill before passageincluded allowingany person at the center of police contact or any occupants of a vehicle stopped by police to record those interactions from a close distance aslong as they don'tinterfere with police actions, like searches or field sobriety tests.

The bill now also defines law enforcement activity as any instance in which police are questioning a suspicious person, arresting someone or interacting with "an emotionally disturbed or disorderly person who is exhibiting abnormal behavior."

HB 2319 would make it a petty offense punishable with a fine for anyone found in violation of the potential law.However, offenders risk facing a misdemeanorif they failto followan officer's verbal warnings or hadpreviously been convictedof violating the law.

Kavanagh, a former detective at the Port Authority in New York, proposed a similar bill in 2016 while he served as a state senator. He killed thatbill himself before it was assigned a hearing because it was "mired in controversy," he said at the time.

The measureproposed this legislative session was approved on Wednesday by the Houseona 31-28party-line vote, with Republicansin favor,and will next go to the Senate for consideration.

Democratic Minority Leader Reginald Bolding voted against the measure, stating it "would make it less transparent for citizens."

"(It's) not the direction that we should be walking in as a state," he said. "I further believe that right now what we have to do as a state is make sure that we are standing up directly for ourcommunities to ensure that they know that they are safe."

SomeFirst Amendment experts say the bill poses a constitutional issue and grants police too much discretion.Various news organizations including Gannett, the company that owns The Arizona Republic, also signed a letter from the National Press Photographers Association opposing the bill because it violated the free speech and press clauses of the First Amendment as well as"the 'clearly established right' to photograph and record police officers performing their official duties in a public place."

"As several federal courts have affirmed, people have the First Amendment right to record police officers while they carry out their duties and the ability to record police interactions has become an important tool to ensure police accountability and transparency," said ACLU of Arizona Communications DirectorMarcela Taracena.

Bystander videos of law enforcement activityhave become increasingly common, and at times helpful at exposing instances of police misconduct. It was instrumental in the case against former Minneapolis police Officer Derek Chauvin who was ultimately convicted in the murder of George Floyd.

Video captured by a bystander also recently showed13-year-old Taylor Thomasbeing punched by a Phoenix police officer.Phoenix's new Office of Accountability and Transparency director Roger Smith told The Republic earlier this month the law "cuts against transparency."

"The more quality information you can get about these incidents, the better," he said. "And for officers who are doing their jobs right, it's better to have more information than less. You'd be able to help those officers to present the fact that they did their jobs correctly."

Aside from the First Amendment issues the bill poses, Arizona First Amendment Coalition Attorney Dan Barr pointed out that it'd be difficult for peopleto follow. Gregg Leslie, director of Arizona State University's First Amendment Clinic, also separately noted that police situations were too fluid to be able to applylimits like the 8-foot distance set by the bill.

"Let's say you're observing the police and you're outside the 8-foot area but the police come at you and they say 'hey turn that camera off' and they come within 8feet of you, are you nowcommitting a crime?" Barr questioned.

Barr later added if HB 2319 issigned into law, it'd only a matter of time before it's challenged in court.

"When you're in public, you just don'thave the same kind of privacy that gives you control over other people'sactions," Leslie said. "So once you add police to the context, there's always an interest in knowing how police are performing their function, even if you're pro-police andyou'rerecording them to show that you think they're doing the right thing ... there's just a public interestin knowing how police are doing their job that is fundamentally important to people."

Reach the reporter at chelsea.curtis@arizonarepublic.comor follow her on Twitter@curtis_chels.

Support local journalism.Subscribe to azcentraltoday.

Excerpt from:
Arizona House approves bill that bans close range recordings of police - The Arizona Republic