The law, signed by Gov. Doug Ducey on Wednesday, takes effect in September. Many civil rights groups and media organizations criticized the measure, which comes after the prevalence of cellphone cameras increased public documentation of police activity, including 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 is no reason for bystanders to be within eight feet of an on-duty police officer and that the law would protect people from approaching dangerous situations and prevent them from to interfere 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 by a rule officer. Law enforcement activity could include questioning a “suspicious” person, arresting or handling a disorderly person, according to the bill’s text. A violation is a misdemeanor, punishable by 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 people who are the subject of police contact, as long as they do not interfere with the officers’ actions. There are no exceptions for journalists. Alan Chen, a law professor at the University of Denver, said there are many outstanding questions about law enforcement, including how people should react if a police officer moves toward them, even though they were recording from a greater distance. of eight meters. “It may prevent them from actually recording or make them back up even further than the eight feet required by law,” Mr. Chen said. “There are definitely 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 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 he expected the US Supreme Court to rule on a case about the police’s right to record in the coming months. “It’s certainly trending towards courts recognizing it as an important tool for holding police accountable for misconduct,” he said. Cell phone videos of deadly police encounters recorded by citizens have gained widespread attention and have featured prominently in courtrooms, though they don’t always lead to charges against officers. Darnella Frazier was 17 years old when she used her cell phone to record a video of a white police officer, Derek Chauvin, kneeling on George Floyd’s neck, killing him. Her video contradicts the Minneapolis Police Department’s initial, inaccurate account of his death. The video of Eric Garner choking to death in 2014, recorded by his friend Ramsey Horta, was also widely shared, but a Staten Island grand jury declined to indict the officer who used the noose, Daniel Pantaleo. Mr. Kavanagh, a Republican, said in an op-ed in The Arizona Republic in March that he proposed the bill because police officers had contacted him to express concerns about “police-hostile groups.” Mr. Kavanagh said he responded to criticism of an earlier version of the bill by shrinking the no-go zone to eight feet from 15 feet and allowing subjects of police action to record video. “I can think of no reason why anyone in charge should get closer than eight feet to a police officer engaged in a hostile or potentially hostile encounter,” Mr. Kavanagh wrote. “Such an approach is unreasonable, unnecessary and unsafe 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 “inapplicable” to protests and demonstrations. The ACLU of Arizona tweeted that the law would make it harder to hold police officers accountable for misconduct and freeze “the public’s use of the most effective tool against police misconduct.”
