Art Credi | NEWS | Candid Camera Arizona’s new law limiting the recording of police challenged as Apache Junction sued for arrest of man doing just that. BY KATYA SCHWENK O n an August afternoon in 2021, Karl Williams stopped by a gas station in Apache Junction to fill his tank. The convenience store, 4 Sons on 29th Avenue, sits just off the Superstition Freeway. But that day, an Apache Junction police cruiser was in the gas station lot. Officers had pulled over a car and were starting to search it. Williams watched as two additional offi- cers arrived on scene to search the car. The swelling police activity piqued his interest, and Williams took out his phone to record. That’s when his nightmare began. As the state of Arizona faces mounting scrutiny — and legal challenges — over a new law that would strip away the right to film police officers, a recent civil rights lawsuit against the city of Apache Junction demonstrates how police can abuse such situations. The lawsuit alleged that after Williams began recording Apache Junction officers from 15 feet away, he was arrested and prosecuted by the city on charges of resisting arrest and hindering prosecution. It’s an ordeal that has lasted for months. “That’s really scary, right, because under [the new law], it’s not clear if those charges could have been dismissed, said Ben Rundall, a senior staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona. Attorneys for Williams filed the lawsuit in Pinal County Superior Court on August 3, one year after his encounter with Apache Junction officers. It was recently trans- ferred to federal court. The city of Apache Junction, its police department, Assistant City Attorney Eric Yuva, and three officers are defendants in the lawsuit. The suit accuses them of false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution. The city has until September 19 to file an answer to the complaint in court. Apache Junction’s city attorney, Joel Stern, wrote in a statement to Phoenix New Times that the city won’t discuss the pending litigation. “All we can say is that the matter has been trans- ferred to federal district court since there is a federal law allegation,” he said. 12 New State Law on Recording Police As the lawsuit makes its way through the courts, the state of Arizona is seeing another legal battle — over a recent law that would ban recording within eight feet of officers. House Bill 2319, which was signed into law in July, makes it illegal to film a police officer within an eight-foot radius, unless the officer consents. Doing so would be classified as a class three misdemeanor, which is punishable by up to a month in jail. Lawmakers — including bill sponsor State Representative John Kavanagh, a Fountain Hills Republican — were warned that the bill was likely unconstitutional. They moved it forward anyway. Arizona Governor Doug Ducey signed it into law in July. It’s supposed to take effect on September 24. The ACLU quickly sued over the law and called the law “unprecedented” and unconstitutional. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the ACLU and 10 news organiza- tions, including the Arizona Republic, the Arizona Mirror, and KOLD-TV, which claimed that the law would impact their ability to report on key events such as protests or police investigations. “On its face, this statute infringes the clearly established First Amendment rights of plaintiffs and everyone else in Arizona to record the public activities of law enforcement officers,” ACLU attor- neys wrote in the complaint. The future of the law is unclear. Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, Maricopa County Sheriff Paul Penzone, and Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell, all powerful figures in the state who would be tasked with enforcing the law, are defendants in the suit. But all three have said they have no interest in defending the law in court. They also don’t oppose an injunction by a judge to stop the law from taking effect, they said in court pleadings. “The Attorney General is not the proper party to defend the merits of A.R.S. § 13-3732,” Brnovich wrote in a legal filing despite defending plenty of other state laws in the past. If lawmakers want to preserve the fate of the law, they will have to find legal represen- tation on their own to intervene in the suit. Rundall said one danger of the law is its vagueness. “There’s so much ambiguity,” he said. Recording is prohibited within eight feet of “any law enforcement activity,” according to the statute, which is given such a wide definition that it could apply to most any on-duty police officer in public. Rundall said that made it easy for anyone to face criminal charges in an interaction that was sparked by recording the police. On September 9, a federal judge granted the ACLU’s motion for a preliminary injunction and blocked the law. Proponents SEPT 15TH–SEPT 21ST, 2022 PHOENIX NEW TIMES | MUSIC | CAFE | FILM | CULTURE | NIGHT+DAY | FEATURE | NEWS | OPINION | FEEDBACK | CONTENTS | phoenixnewtimes.com
