Arizona Attorney General Says It Won’t Enforce State’s Dumbass ‘No Recording Cops Within 8 Feet’ Law
from the sayonara,-shitheels dept
Because cops are the frailest of creatures and are actively harmed by people, you know, looking at them, legislators have made sure they’re ultra-protected by enacting super shitty laws that elevate cops above the people they serve.
“Blue Lives” laws insist cops’ lives are worth more than anyone else’s lives. They add years to sentences if the crime victim is a cop. Cops who claim to have been “assaulted” by someone whose rights they’ve violated can often avail themselves of “victims’ rights” laws to keep their names from being made public. Another subset of laws increases legal penalties for interfering with/assaulting “first responders,” even though it’s only cops that experience this sort of repercussive friction when doing their jobs.
(Has anyone ever been booked for assaulting a fireman/EMT? Yeah, I thought not. It’s only cops crying “assault” because someone failed to cuff themselves, retire to the back of a cruiser, and throw the book at themselves while booking themselves in at the local jail.)
Elected idiots seem to believe people with an obscene amount of discretionary power should be even more protected from the people they serve. That’s how asinine legislation becomes awful reality, even when those passing the laws should know better than to fuck with the First Amendment.
In July of 2022, then Arizona Governor Doug Doucey decided his state’s most idiotic legislators were right: cops deserve to be protected from people that actively observe their public activities. He signed into law a bill that prevented recording cops from any distance under 8 feet. How this would be enforced was left to the imaginations of cops who don’t like being filmed, despite plenty of court precedent guaranteeing this First Amendment right.
So, of course, the new law was immediately challenged in court. Within two months of its passage, a federal court had issued an injunction against the obviously unconstitutional statute — one even Arizona cops felt wasn’t worth defending.
Securing an injunction is always helpful. Forcing the law off the books, however, remains the best solution. And that appears to be where this law is headed, now that the state attorney general has decided it won’t waste its resources defending an obviously unconstitutional law.
The Arizona Attorney General agreed to settle a federal lawsuit against the state, declaring that a state statute that bans video recording within eight feet of law enforcement activity is unconstitutional.
[…]
In September, then-Attorney General Mark Brnovich refused to argue against the plaintiffs, entering a “non-opposition” notice in court, stating in part: “The Attorney General is not the proper party to defend the merits of (the statute) A.R.S. § 13-3732.”
On Wednesday, a representative for the current Arizona Attorney General, Kris Mayes, agreed to an injunction that finds the law violates the First Amendment and cannot be enforced.
That’s the substance of the state’s settlement [PDF] with those opposing the law. The settlement specifically agrees the statute violates the First Amendment and cannot survive constitutional scrutiny because it engages in content-based restriction (the recording of cops) and “chills a substantial amount of First Amendment protected activity.”
It’s always refreshing to see this sort of thing from state politicians and prosecutors. Other state AGs would have spent an untold amount of money defending an obviously unconstitutional law. But in Arizona — where’s it’s uber-fashionable to worship law enforcement — two consecutive AGs have told the state (and the former governor) they’re not going to go to bat for bad law. (Or, at least, not this one.)
Despite the AG’s affirmative veto of the law, one state rep — a former cop — still thinks citizens should be restricted when recording police officers performing their public duties.
Kavanagh, a former police officer himself, told 12News on Thursday that he does not believe current laws do enough to protect police from interference and does not believe that limits on distance would stop the public from holding police accountable.
“The people who oppose this law made it very clear that people standing one foot behind the officer is not interfering. The current obstruction law isn’t enough,” Kavanagh said. “I am not preventing videotaping. I’m just saying keep back so you don’t distract the officer.”
I don’t think the people “opposing” this law have “made it clear” that people should be allowed to climb into an officer’s hip pocket in order to record incidents and arrests. The only people in cops’ pockets are strawmen Rep. Kavanagh hopes will burn with enough brightness it will obscure his latent desire to protect cops from public accountability.
Kavanagh’s bullshit — one supported by none other than the former governor himself — is still going to cost Arizona taxpayers some money. Even with the AG bowing out early rather than wasting funds defending the indefensible, the AG’s office has agreed to pay $69,000 in legal fees to the prevailing parties. It may not seem like much but it does matter… at least to those still interested in protecting the rights of Arizonans — a group that does not include the former governor, Rep. Kavanagh, or his allies in the legislature.
Filed Under: 1st amendment, arizona, blue lives matter, kris mayes, mark brnovich, recording police
Comments on “Arizona Attorney General Says It Won’t Enforce State’s Dumbass ‘No Recording Cops Within 8 Feet’ Law”
For professionals who only have "a few bad apples" behaving badly...
police sure spend a lot of time making sure nobody can hold them accountable. What’s up with that?
It was designed to allow cops to approach someone who is recording and ::bam!:: that person is now breaking the law and gets arrested. Cops get a magic 8 foot bubble that they can use like a legal battering ram to crash into people’s rights.
Re:
The nature of the law would have meant law enforcement always claiming you were within 8 feet regardless of common sense or actual distance, even if you were a football field, an entire continent, or several light years away.
Re:
A slight correction; that should be anybody holding a phone, as phones have cameras….
Yes.
Re:
Yeah, it’s not uncommon at all. The author needs to learn to google.
Re: Re:
Yes, it’s so common union leaders and politicians are regularly calling for legislation that protects EMTs and firefighters from being assaulted. They even raise awareness by selling merchandise featuring the “thin red line” flag to ensure people properly respect those who put their lives on the line to save people from injury or death. It’s been in all the papers.
Why, just last week, I heard an EMT union head claim that proposed legislation made it more difficult for first responders to do their jobs. Because of the additional scrutiny, EMTs and firefighters were refusing to respond to emergency calls and participating in “sick outs” to press their point.
We cover this all the time at this site because it’s a huge problem. Public safety is of utmost importance and we can’t have first responders (other than cops) refusing to provide first aid or extinguish fires. Not only that, but it’s these agencies that are demanding outsized portions of local budgets while refusing to do their jobs because they think some people might not like them.
But point taken: I’ll try to Google better from now on.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Oblivious the clown
what’s this 🐎💩? first off, No one wants some dumb 🫏 with a camera in their face when their trying to work. Much less an agitator when your wrestling some meth head! Public service workers in general generate enhanced charges if you assault them. Teachers, Fire Fighters, Nurses, EMTs etc, does this 🤡 not know this? Yes people who assault fire fighters are arrested, assault a nurse? Arrested, assault a teacher? Arrested all come with enhanced charging! Dude has a pid cast but doesn’t know how to Google some info? Imagine the melt down he would have if he was doing his pod cast and I burst in with a camera with s bright 🫏 light on and get in his face yelling stupid 💩 at him the entire time! No….. I’m sure he’d be fine with it. HYPOCRIT!
Re:
Re: Re:
Considering the number of school shootings, and how many people demand guns for those in the teaching profession…
Re: Re: Re:
That always makes me cringe..
“Too many shootings? We need to arm a famously underpaid profession who are most likely not to be trained or interested in guns!”
Meanwhile, the “you’re the only country in the developed world where teachers even have to think about such things” goes mysteriously unnoticed.
Defend your kids by all means, but before locking them up in a high security prison where crossfire is the main defence, at least consider why the first gun is there.
Re:
I’m trained in all kinds of nifty stuff (arctic, desert) … I’m S&R and I come get you off the side of a hill.
I haven’t even once been intruded upon doing my job, or my Sheriff buddies doing our jobs.
Re: Re:
Hot send answering a call my bags..
Iwas talking to sunshine that thinks all cops are bad and TD hates then.
Re: Sure Jan
People who use emojis and all caps deserve to be taken seriously and defiantly should end be mocked relentlessly.
Re:
True, but many people are surveilled while working. Why not literal public servants?
The meltdown when a private citizen working in his own home is confronted with a camera, compared to a public servant on a public street?
I’m sure even you can work out the differences here…
Cop1: (points to citizen on rooftop with telephoto lens)
Cop2: (stops beating arrestee, charges into building and up 10 flights of stairs)
Cop2: You’re distracting me, you’re going to have to move back.
Attorney General says he won’t prosecute/enforce but that will still not stop the cops from actually arresting and booking a bystander who is filming.
Re:
Yup, just because the law isn’t going to be enforced in court doesn’t mean it won’t be used against anyone cops don’t want filming them.
This is a good first step but the next step is to scrap the law entirely so it’s no longer on the books and can’t be used against the public.
'HE won't hit you with the club, WE on the other hand...'
If the AG is issuing a public statement about how he won’t be enforcing the law due to it’s massive constitutional problems then it sure seems like a no-brainer to get rid of the law entirely unless police plan on using it anyway to harass anyone they don’t like and politicians are eager to assist them in that.
You’d think the police would welcome more people recording them since they’re always right and almost always find themselves innocent of any wrongdoing.