Civil rights groups and the media opposed the measure signed by Republican Gov. Doug Ducey on Thursday. The law makes it illegal in Arizona to knowingly film police officers 8 feet (2.5 meters) or closer without an officer’s permission. Someone on private property with the owner’s consent can also be ordered to stop recording if a police officer determines they are interfering or the area is unsafe. The penalty is a misdemeanor that will likely carry a fine without jail time. There needs to be a law to protect officers from people who “either have very poor judgment or terrible motives,” said Republican Rep. John Kavanagh, the bill’s sponsor. “I am pleased that a very sensible law that promotes the safety of police officers and those involved in police stops and bystanders has been signed into law,” Cavanagh said Friday. “It promotes everyone’s safety, yet still allows people to reasonably videotape police activity as is their right.” The move comes nearly a year after the U.S. Department of Justice launched a wide-ranging investigation into the Phoenix police force to examine whether officers are using excessive force and abusing people experiencing homelessness. It’s similar to other investigations launched in recent months in Minneapolis and Louisville. The Phoenix Police Department, which oversees the nation’s fifth-largest city, has come under fire in recent years for its use of force, which disproportionately affects black and Native American residents. The law has left opponents like KM Bell, a staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, incredulous. Federal appeals courts have already ruled that police recording is “a clear right,” according to Bell. The law will not work in real scenarios. “We are talking about people who are in a public space and a place where they have the right to be. We’re not talking about someone who broke into the (National Security Agency),” Bell said. Kavanagh, who has been a police officer for 20 years, amended the legislation to apply to certain types of police action, including questioning suspects and encounters involving mental or behavioral health issues. The law also provides exceptions for people who are the direct object of police interaction. They can film as long as they are not arrested or searched. Someone in a car stopped by the police or being questioned can also film the encounter. “These waivers were based on input from all kinds of people, including the ACLU,” he said. Legends two years ago about anti-police groups deliberately approaching officers while filming inspired bills. There was a risk that an officer could be injured or a suspect could escape or destroy evidence, Kavanagh said. The Rev. Jarrett Maupin, a Phoenix activist, has represented victims of excessive police brutality. Some of the cases received more publicity because video taken by bystanders was posted online. In one case, a Black couple had police officers pull guns on 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 accountability. “Proximity is not a luxury when it comes to documenting the actions of officers involved in acts of violence,” Maupin said. Sometimes victims and bystanders have no choice but to be nearby which the bill now prohibits.” Bell said it’s unlikely other states will follow suit to limit police records with direct questions about constitutionality. The new law makes no exceptions for the press. Media groups, including the Associated Press, said the measure raised serious constitutional questions. They signed a letter from the National Press Photographers Association, or NPPA, opposing the bill. Setting one-off conditions like “arbitrary distances” of 8 feet (2.5 meters) for police videotaping simply doesn’t work, said Mickey Osterreicher, NPPA general counsel. It’s also unclear whether someone is breaking the law if an officer approaches them within a few feet. “What happens when you’re in situations like we’ve seen during all the protests in the last two years, where you have a lot of people with cameras? We’re not just talking about journalists,” Osterreicher said. “And you have a lot of police. Will they all run with a ruler?’ Cellphone cameras have changed policing with one of the biggest examples being the killing of George Floyd in 2020, but Cavanagh said a law like Arizona’s would not have an impact because the video in that case was captured by a larger distance. Osterreicher argued that a police officer could invoke the law even if the person he was filming is quite a distance away. But that was not the case in the Floyd case. “Thankfully, these officers out of all the wrong things they did, the one thing they didn’t do was tell her to turn off the camera or try to interfere with her recording,” Osterreicher said.
