A federal judge on Friday blocked enforcement of a new Arizona law that restricts how the public and journalists can film police.
The law will be put on hold when it takes effect on September 24. After the prosecutor and sheriff's office told the judge they did not plan to defend the law, the decision was made quickly. They were listed as defendants in the lawsuit.
The law was passed by the Legislature and signed by the governor.
If the officer tells the person to stop, it's against the law to film them. On private property, an officer who decides someone is interfering or the area is unsafe can order the person to stop filming.
The penalty is a non-violent offense that would result in a fine.
KM Bell, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, was in court on Friday and said they were pleased with the judge's quick action.
Bell said that they were very pleased that Arizonans would not have their rights interfered with by the law.
The death of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis officers in 2020 is credited with revealing police wrongdoing, and is one of the reasons why bystander cellphone videos are so important. The legislation was necessary to limit people with cameras who impede officers.
The Legislature was given a week to make a decision. A permanent injunction is being sought by the American Civil Liberties Union and media groups.
The law's sponsor, a retired police officer, said he was taken by surprise when the law's author didn't defend it.
The attorney general was supposed to defend a law passed by the state. We are trying to get together with the speaker and the president of the Senate to see if they will defend it.
Defending state laws is one of the responsibilities of the office. The attorney general doesn't have the power to enforce these types of cases, so they were the wrong party to file a lawsuit, according to his spokesman.
The news organizations that sued were represented by Matt Kelley. He pointed out that the attorney general can step in and enforce the law.
He made several changes to address the concerns of the American Civil Liberties Union after he argued that allowing people to record police up close while they are doing enforcement could endanger them. Changing the restriction from 16 feet to 8 feet is one of the changes.
He said that he thinks this is reasonable. Trying to limit the scope of government reach is unconstitutional if what is causing the problem is my limiting it to just these law enforcement characters in all encounters. That is the world we live in.
The law was problematic. The law did not meet the requirements to restrict First Amendment protections for filming law enforcement activities.
Kelley said that there wasn't anything in the law that said the person recording has to be interfering with law enforcement. It was not allowed to stand there and make a video recording. The law was unconstitutional because it was protected by the First Amendment.
The original legislation was amended to only apply to certain types of police actions. People who are in a stopped car are not exempt.
Six of the nation's dozen U.S. appeals courts have ruled in favor of people recording police. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver ruled that a lawsuit against a suburban Denver police department could proceed after the Arizona law was signed. The officer blocked the traffic stop from being recorded.
Black and Native American residents are disproportionately affected by the use of force by the Phoenix police department.
The law will make it difficult for reporters and photographers to do their jobs. Phoenix Newspapers Inc., parent of The Arizona Republic, is one of the outlets that sued.
A friend of the court brief was filed by the Associated Press. The attorneys for the AP said that it could limit their ability to capture the full interaction between police and protesters when covering rallies.
All Rights Reserved © 2024
