Sunday, January 10, 2016

you can't film police brutality in Arizona?


Right To Videotape Police Brutality In Progress Threatened By Proposed Arizona Law

The right to videotape police brutality in progress and other activities has been well established in courts around the country. Nevertheless, Arizona state Senator John Kavanagh (R-Fountain Hills) has proposed a law to limit that right.

get permission to videotape police Brutality in progress? Or a police officer making racist remarks? really?

Senate Bill 1054 says activists and others can no longer videotape police brutality and other activities by law enforcement:
“It is unlawful for a person to knowingly make a video recording of law enforcement activity, including the handling of an emotionally disturbed person, if the person making the video recording does not have the permission of a law enforcement officer and is within 20 feet of where the law enforcement activity is occurring.”
Say what? Get permission of the law enforcement officer to come within an arbitrary 20 foot limit? Are citizens supposed to carry a tape measure with them in case they need to videotape police brutality in progress — and then get the officer’s okay to record the abuse?
This is an outrageous violation of the First Amendment. As Dan Pochoda, with the Arizona chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, puts it:
“It’s an important right in a democracy to see what law enforcement is doing, and this would infringe on that right by definition. We know they don’t like being taped, but videotapes have been instrumental in trying to hold law enforcement accountable.”
Where has Kavanagh been that he doesn’t know how important these recordings are to confronting police brutality and the abuse of power? Oh, that’s right. Arizona. At least, that’s where he’s been for the last 20 years. Before that, he was — ta-dah! — a police officer with the New Jersey Police Department and the Port Authority of New York.
The picture becomes clearer. Who wouldn’t want police activities to be more transparent? Um, let me see …
Attorney Daniel Barr, who represents the First Amendment Coalition of Arizona, confronted Kavanaugh about making it a crime to videotape police within that arbitrary zone. After all, not only do laws already exist that make it a crime to interfere with police activities, but an individual being questioned is without a doubt within the prohibited 20 feet of space. The new legislation would automatically make it a crime for those people to record their own interactions with officers. To that criticism, Kavanaugh replied:
“If you’re the subject of a law enforcement activity, you’ve got to submit to the authority of the police officer, put your hands on the car, keep your hands out of your pocket. You don’t pretend that the cop’s not there so you can do whatever you want.”
But, oops, this career officer forgot that ‘questioning’ by police is far different than an actual arrest. An arrest may be the outcome — or may not. The public has a right to protect itself with verification of the facts — which, incidentally, may or may not include having a car to put your hands on.
However, Republican Kavanagh knows who he represents. His constituency is in Fountain Hills, Arizona. Fountain Hills is 90% white. Both its median income and its median home values are at least 50% above Arizona’s as a whole. The city overwhelmingly votes Republican. In 2012, 55% of them supported Mitt Romney, compared to 43% for President Obama.
The main crime in Fountain Hills? Property crimes. Ninety percent of its crimes are against property. The police in Fountain Hills are there to protect rich people’s assets. Why would the citizens in Fountain Hills be concerned about the rights of people questioned by the police when they have their property rights to consider and riff-raff to keep out of their town?

of course a man who gets in trouble for racist remarks would object to videotaping police.

More basic to the motivation behind Kavanagh’s proposed law is the character of the man himself. He’s known for making racially charged comments. At a roast of his buddy, notorious Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Kavanagh joked about waiters and cooks jumping out the back window of restaurants when he shows up, about Muslim waiters refusing to serve pork, and about the numbers of Hispanics Arpaio has pulled over on the highway — among other things. The episode prompted the League of United Latin American Citizens to call for his resignation. But we’ve all seen how far condemnation of racism has gotten in Arizona.
There’s not much chance that SB 1054 will stand, if passed, due to the weight of previous court cases. Pochoda points out that courts look at whether a law is more restrictive than it needs to be. He says:
“It’s not that there’s insufficient justification for [Kavanagh’s] bill. It’s that there’s no justification. [Video recordings] have been instrumental in trying to hold law enforcement accountable all the way back from Rodney King to this point in time.”
Arizona’s disregard for legal precedents makes one wonder if its legislators even understand the concept.
A similar law proposed in Texas last year was withdrawn by its sponsor, Representative Jason Villalba, because it faced such heavy criticism. Reactions came from across the political spectrum, as well as from the police — who didn’t like having the perimeter for “interference” so concretely defined.
If it was defeated by the citizens of Texas, could the same thing happen in Arizona? Nah, that’s stretching credulity a little too far. But the proposed law probably wouldn’t stand up in court, where it’s chance would be as good as a snowball’s in hell — so to speak.
Feature photo adapted from Shane Becker on Flickr and Wikimedia Commons.
end quote from:
http://reverbpress.com/justice/az-bill-ban-videotape-police-brutality/

No comments: