Arizona Says “No” To Recording Cops… Even in Your Own Home

Guest Post by Eric Peters

Here’s one that demands pushback – as much as can be sent its way.recording cops pic

Arizona lawmakers want to make it illegal – a criminal offense – to film cops on private property.

In (air quotes) your home.

The air quotes being necessary to impart the appropriate irony.

If SB 1054 becomes law, anyhow.

If it does, AZ residents will be required to obtain the permission of any cop before they may lawfully record his actions. The legality of the cop’s conduct is ultimately irrelevant. He will be able to arrest you, if you film or otherwise record him without his prior ok.

This is an important point.

Legally speaking, any video made without prior permission stands on shaky ground as potential evidence – even if the video shows a cop committing crime. The video could be suppressed, dismissed – or more likely, destroyed. And the destruction could be – probably will be – anointed legal because, after all, the video was made illegally.John Kavanagh

No surprise, SB 1054 was introduced by a Republican, AZ State Rep. John Kavanaugh of District 8 (see here for more about him). Even less surprisingly, Kavanaugh is an ex-cop. An ex New Jersey cop. New Jersey is a notably corrupt state, run by thugs like Chris Christie – who is known to have used his powers to abuse his political opponents (see here) and steer lucrative state contracts to family and friends like a real-life Tony Soprano (see here).

“Law and order” Republicans like Christie – and Kavanaugh – use the law to order things to their liking. La cosa nostra… this thing of ours.

Capisce?

SB1054’s first paragraph deals with recording cops out in public, setting forth a “20 foot” standard. Any closer and it’s automatically illegal – and you are immediately subject to arrest. But even staying back 20 feet doesn’t mean you won’t be arrested.

SB1054 decrees that one may not record from any distance if the officer “determines that the person is interfering in the law enforcement activity.” Which means he may arrest you at his whim, since there is no clear definition of “interfering with law enforcement activity” other than the officer’s “determination.”hero with gun drawn

That is, the officer’s opinion. His feelings.

Any guess as to how he is probably feeling when you pull out your iPhone?

But the most noxious portion of SB1054 is the next graph, which makes it a crime to record cops running amok inside your own home:

“If the law enforcement activity is occurring in an enclosed structure that is on  private property (i.e., your home) a person who is authorized (authorized? by whom?) may make a video recording of the activity from an adjacent room or area that is less than twenty feet away from where the activity is occurring…”

An adjacent room?

How does one record a beating being administered in the adjacent room? Technology has given us amazing capabilities – but can iPhones take video through drywall? And what happens if the person attempting to document events in the adjacent room dares to poke his head – or his camera – out of the adjacent room to get a clear view of the beating being administered (or the evidence being planted) in the next room?stop resisting!

Under SB1054, that’s “interfering in the law enforcement activity” – all the cop has to do is say it is – and off to the clink you go.

And if “interfering”  doesn’t cut it, there’s always that old standby, “safety.”

SB104 states that a cop may forcibly remove or arrest you by pronouncing the magic words: “… it is not safe to be in the area.”

Note that neither of these things – “interfering” or “safety” – has an objective definition. This is deliberate. The entire point of SB1054 is to give cops a free hand to stomp video recording of their “activities” at their whim, without fear of repercussions. To intimidate anyone who might be thinking about recording cops.

Illinois was (and still is) famous for arresting people and charging them with scary felonies – and serious time in prison – under “wiretapping” statutes. That’s been dialed back some, but the cops are pushing back there and elsewhere due to the dawning awareness in the public mind, courtesy of citizen recordings uploaded to YouTube and such, that “Officer Friendly” often isn’t. Public confidence in the decency of cops is at its lowest point since the Rodney King beatdown back in the ’90s – which virtually no one outside of law enforcement would have known about had it not been for a citizen recording.

Would that citizen have recorded if he’d known he might go to jail for doing so?

How about the recent summary execution of Walter Scott by South Carolina Hero Cop Michael Slager? Is there doubt in anyone’s mind that  – absent the video evidence – Slager would still be in uniform instead of awaiting trail for felony murder?

These are not “isolated” cases.

Citizen video has merely made what’s been going on common knowledge. And that – from the point of of law enforcement – is something that’s got to be dealt with.

Remember the scene in Star Wars when Chancellor Palpatine is exposed as Darth Sidious? Unlimited power!

Basically the same thing here.

SB 1054 is an example of the vitiation of law, an essential prerequisite for… unlimited power.

Laws are supposed to establish boundaries. Clearly define what people – including cops – may and may not do. SB1054 establishes boundaries, alright.

For us.

We may do as ordered.

And when we don’t, we’re subject to being tackled and Tazed, cuffed and stuffed.

For the “crime” of recording official crime.

Franz Kafka, phone home.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
14 Comments
Anonymous
Anonymous
January 12, 2016 8:40 am

If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.

We get told that all the time by the authorities, so it stands to reason those telling us that who want to have observation of their activities banned have something to hide.

Eyewitnesses can easily be discredited by crafty lawyers, video can (and frequently is) as well but it is much harder to do it and remains in public view so the public can decide for themselves and discuss then form their opinions from it.

card802
card802
January 12, 2016 9:00 am

Why am I not surprised?

goofyfoot
goofyfoot
January 12, 2016 9:15 am

Pigs in Zen

John Coster
John Coster
January 12, 2016 11:10 am

Once we allowed our political “leadership”, most spectacularly, during the years of the Bush/Obomber
administration to betray the country with impunity and renounce the Constitution, we set the stage for all the smaller turdballs like this John Kavanaugh fellow to float up through the plumbing. How does one even mount an argument against such nonsense? Such an authoritarian wet dream disregards any reasonable understanding of what “law” actually is, much less Constitutional law. I suppose in this era of “findings”, the assumed executive privilege to wage war at will and the right to spread whatever self serving nonsense one wants through the supine media, little piss-ant Hitlers like Kavanaugh just say to themselves, “Me Too! I want to push people around whenever I want to with no accountability, just like the big guys.”

SSS
SSS
January 12, 2016 11:20 am

Arizona hasn’t said “No” to video taping a cop. Kavanaugh’s bill is going nowhere because it’s just plain stupid. Even if it gets out of the state legislature, which it won’t, Governor Doug Ducey will veto it. Ducey has a pretty solid streak of Libertarian in his politics. Example: he wants to eliminate the state income tax.

Southern Sage
Southern Sage
January 12, 2016 12:04 pm

Write to every member of the Arizona legislature against this foul piece of garbage.

Overthecliff
Overthecliff
January 12, 2016 12:10 pm

Usually I am a supporter of LEO. However, permitting government to act in the dark is never a good idea. Use of force by government should not be secret. Secrecy makes government very dangerous.

Suzanna
Suzanna
January 12, 2016 12:31 pm

Walter Scott was not shot. He lay there with someone filming

“from behind the fence” narrating. The second cop comes

along to check it out and they turn Walter over, lift his shirt, roll

him back. There was not a drop of blood. Those must have been

cauterizing bullets, ha ha. And his shirt wasn’t even torn.

Rationale for this BS? Drum up resentment for the cops.

Psy-ops for dummies.

Anonymous
Anonymous
January 12, 2016 1:01 pm

SSS.

Off topic, but what is Ducey proposing to replace State income tax?

(I generally oppose income taxes and would see other taxes replace them such as excise and sales taxes).

Anonymous
Anonymous
January 12, 2016 1:07 pm

Suzanna,

What caused Scott’s death?

FWIW, I’ve seen a number of people shot (VietNam) and some bleed and some do not.

If the heart stops instantly there is very little blood unless the wound is where the blood runs out on it’s own like it would from a hole in a bucket.

And some fatal wounds just don’t cut larger arteries and veins to cause much external bleeding. A common example of this everyone should be familiar with is an ice pick wound.

Kill Bill
Kill Bill
January 12, 2016 2:14 pm

Example: he wants to eliminate the state income tax. ~SSS

I dunno supr spi. I dont trust polcats. I wager it never happens.

But the weed sellers might move to your state iffn that abrogation of taxes occured.

Westcoaster
Westcoaster
January 12, 2016 2:27 pm

Sounds to me like this bill might just violate the 1st & 4th amendment.

SSS
SSS
January 13, 2016 4:30 pm

Anonymous says:

SSS.

“Off topic, but what is (Arizona governor) Ducey proposing to replace State income tax?”

Nothing. His plans include greater job creation (= greater sales tax collection) and making Arizona very business friendly a la Texas through removal of a lot regulatory barriers, both local and state. He jokes that his greatest supporter in this endeavor is California governor Jerry Brown. And it’s not really a joke anymore. Individuals and businesses in California which can easily relocate are flocking into Arizona, particularly the Phoenix metro area.

SSS
SSS
January 13, 2016 4:37 pm

Kill Bill says:

Example: he wants to eliminate the state income tax. ~SSS

“I dunno supr spi. I dont trust polcats. I wager it never happens.”

Why not, KB? Other states do WELL w/o a state income tax, such as Florida, New Hampshire, Texas, South Dakota, Wyoming, and uber-liberal Washington. Arizona’s elected officials are dominated by business-friendly Republicans. Ducey has a good shot at making this happen.