american civil liberties union

A new Arizona bill introduced by Senator John Kavanagh will make recording a police officer a criminal act if passed.

The bill, SB 1054, which Senator Kavanagh says he proposed as a measure to ensure the safety of police officers and those videotaping, would prohibit video recording police officers from a distance of 20 feet or less.

Members of the American Civil Liberties Union have attacked the bill as unconstitutional, citing that it violates the First Amendment. Professor Paul Bender, the dean emeritus of the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at Arizona State University was quoted in an article in the Guardian as saying the bill was “on the face of it unconstitutional” and problematic.

The bill supports a person’s right to videotape a police officer outside 20 feet and within that distance on private property, or in their own residence if the person records from an adjacent room.

However, the bill would also give police officers the right to end any video recording, regardless of distance, if the police officer deemed the recording an interference in law enforcement activity.

“The language in bill SB 1054 that’s most concerning for law analysts is the section that gives law enforcement officers the right to supercede the previous sections securing a citizen’s right to film law enforcement from more than 20 feet,” said Chris Corso of Corso Law Group.

“This bill would allow any police officer the right to stop citizens from recording arrests, no matter the circumstances,” said Corso, “and would subject those who refused to stop recording to legal prosecution.”

Under protection of the First Amendment, Americans have the right to film police officers while they are on duty. This right has been pivotal in recent, high-profile court cases that have been successfully defended based on video evidence taken at the scene and involving police officer misconduct.  

One such high-profile case involved the shooting of Walter Scott, a South Carolina man who was shot in the back by Officer Michael Slager as he ran away. Video coverage captured by a witness was used to strengthen the case.

In America, the right to film police has already been established and includes specific regulations. For example, although the right to photograph police is protected by the First Amendment, officials do have the power to stop anyone from filming who they believe is legitimately interfering with law enforcement, according to the ACLU.

“Photography is a form of power, and people are loath to give up power, including police officers,” Jay Stanley, a senior policy analyst at the ACLU, said in The Atlantic. “It’s a power struggle where the citizen is protected by the law but, because it is a power struggle, sometimes that’s not enough.”

Although police may tell people to stop recording and ask that they turn over their footage, a guide for photographers by the ACLU, Know Your Rights, says it’s illegal for police to confiscate photos or videos without a warrant.

The First Amendment protects a citizen’s right to take pictures of anything in plain view in public space, including police officers.

A district court judge has blocked an Arizona “revenge porn” law due to concerns about restrictions it may place on First Amendment rights.

An agreement was reached by U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton to prohibit prosecutors from enforcing the law so that publishers, booksellers, librarians and photographers are allowed to use nude photos, for which they may not have written consent, when they represent “newsworthy, artistic, and historical speech,” AZ Family reports.

Previously, prosecutors were allowed to go after “revenge porn” offenders, but these effort have been stopped by the American Civil Liberties Union, which claimed that the statute was too broad and violated First Amendment rights like free speech.

In 2014, the Arizona Legislature passed statute A.R.S. 13-1425, which addressed the unlawful distribution of these types of images. Rep. J.D. Mesnard, R-Chandler, sponsored the bill in hopes of making the distribution of nude photos of a person without their written consent a felony offense.

With this new agreement in place, how should these types of cases be prosecuted? Is free speech more important than a person’s right to privacy?

These are both questions that will have to be answered from case to case as victims of “revenge porn” seek legal help. However, the public should be able to protect both their First Amendment and privacy rights without one being favored over the other.

With technology and social media reaching new heights every day, “revenge porn” is developing into a serious problem, especially as it becomes easier to take, send and distribute photos online in a matter of seconds.

By blocking prosecutors from enforcing the “revenge porn” law altogether, victims of this offense must face humiliation, destroyed intimate relationships as well as potentially limited professional and educational opportunities.

Mesnard introduced a revised version of the law in response to the ACLU’s lawsuit, but it failed in the Senate. He plans to try again during the next legislative session with new elements that could take care of the First Amendment complaints.

The revisions would require prosecutors to prove malicious intent was behind the posting and that the person in the photos had an expectation of privacy when they were taken.

Tasers are used by 15,000 law enforcement and military bodies in the U.S. as an alternative to lethal weapons when force is necessary to subdue a person in a threatening situation.

However, recent criticism of police use of force has led to the scrutiny of police use of Tasers, and whether they are actually safer than guns and other weapons.

When fired, Tasers emit a 50,000-volt shock of electricity to the body, which overrides the central nervous system of whoever was struck, leading to an instant collapse as well as uncontrollable muscle contractions, according to a report by the Stanford Criminal Justice Center.

The fall, due to lack of muscle control, is often the cause of more serious injuries relating to the use of a Taser. In general, however, the company claims the shock doesn’t typically cause serious or lasting harm to the average person. Instead, the Taser International website says Tasers have saved more than 140,000 lives, and that injuries are reduced by up to 60 percent when alternative means of force are used.

This may not be true, however, for a significant number of people who are not considered average in terms of health.

For pregnant women and those who have certain health problems including cardiovascular issues, mental illness, heart conditions and high blood pressure, a Taser shock can cause serious injuries and death in some cases.

Dontay Ivy, an Albany man with heart problems and paranoid schizophrenia, died after being shot with a Taser and wrestling police to the ground earlier this year. The cause of death is still being investigated, but Ivy’s family plans to press charges for negligence, racial profiling and excessive force.

Others extreme cases, like that of South Carolina man Walter Scott, involve the use of a Taser in combination with other weapons as the cause of death. North Charleston police officer Michael Slager was fired and later charged with murder for using excessive force against Scott.

These cases bring into question whether Tasers are an acceptable method for police to control a situation, or if their use encourages unnecessary force.

Geoffrey P. Alpert, a criminology professor at the University of South Carolina who researches police use of force, said in the New York Times that Tasers could be effective tools when used properly, but he cautioned that many officers in the United States had come to rely on them excessively.

“Officers need to be spending more time de-escalating situations, instead of resorting to the use of this very convenient tool,” said Emma Andersson, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union. “The jury’s still out on whether or not it’s lethal force, but it’s not nothing; it’s very dangerous.”

Others, like Taser International’s spokesman Steve Tuttle, who argues that they are no magic bullet, but they are “safe, effective and accountable” devices.

Currently, no extensive report on the use of Tasers exists, but it seems that all parties can agree that Tasers are dangerous, and must be used with caution. A guideline by the U.S. Justice Department from 2011 sets the standard, stating that Tasers are weapons, and should be used out of necessity, not convenience.