According to a pending settlement document in a First Amendment lawsuit over an attempt to limit public access to police action, Arizona will pay media outlets, including the Arizona Republic, and the Arizona ACLU $6 in attorney fees. agreed to pay $9,000.
The settlement provides that Chris Mays, as Attorney General, will pay the Arizona State Press $46,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs and $23,000 to the ACLU. Revenues to the press will be split.
It all stems from a controversial state law last year that banned filming police from within eight feet. The law, House Bill 2319, was challenged by media organizations, including The Republic, claiming it violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The bill’s passage clashed concerns about protecting free speech with a desire to keep police officers safe on duty.
A draft order filed with the court this week, if approved as expected, would prohibit enforcement of the police video ban and declare it unconstitutional. U.S. District Judge John Tucci still needs to approve these orders before they become final, and decisions will be made on his schedule.
This week’s submission was a win for news outlets and anyone looking to record police officers on duty.
“We certainly appreciate the Attorney General’s acknowledgment that this law is apparently unconstitutional and should be overturned by the court,” said Matthew Kelly, an attorney for the news media plaintiffs. rice field.
He also said he was pleased with the firm’s agreement to settle some of its attorney fees because of the costs of having to sue. But Kelly said there is a bigger picture of what the outcome could mean if judges take their side.
“The real-world conclusion is that the law was dangerous, especially for journalists, because it essentially meant that police officers could fabricate crimes, issue warnings, and make arrests without the opportunity or ability to do so. ”Stay at least eight feet away from the police,” he said.
Kelley went on to say that the law would “ridiculate” the ability of journalists, in particular, to report news about what the police are doing, as well as those who for some reason simply want to capture police footage. said it would have an impact on
Fountain Hills Republican Senator John Kavanagh, who proposed the bill when he was in the state House of Representatives, told The Republic on Thursday that he was unaware of the proposed order prohibiting the enforcement of the ban and that it had been declared unconstitutional. Told. Nevertheless, he said he would object to how the outcome would affect his own bill if Mr Tutsi approved it.
“This is a lawsuit that the Attorney General did not defend,” Kavanaugh said. “Obviously, this result is not unexpected, but I am by no means satisfied.”
The police video ban bill was created in the wake of a series of high-profile recordings of police misconduct frequently filmed by protesters. Opponents of the bill argued that it would hinder police accountability. But Mr Kavanagh, a former police officer, wrote the bill to create a buffer in his interactions with the police so they can do their job.
Kavanagh said he hoped that Mark Brnovic, who was the attorney general at the time the lawsuit was filed, would defend the law and fix it if the court identified the law’s flaws.
“I can only hope that what the judge puts out this time contains such an explanation and that[the law]can be rewritten to make it constitutional. The police are a foot behind the police.” Because I believe that I need to be protected from people who try to stand up.” Intense encounter.
In one of its court filings this week, the press and the attorney general’s office enumerated why the law is unconstitutional and violates the First Amendment. One reason is that law enforcement officers have a “clearly established right” to be recorded while on duty. they are in public service.
Last summer, Gov. Doug Ducey signed into law a ban on police videos, making it illegal to film police activity from within eight feet. Violators will face misdemeanor charges. The law was due to go into effect in September last year, but before that, Mr. Tucci dropped the ban and sided with the press that raised concerns about the First Amendment.
At the time, Tuchi determined that media groups were “likely to succeed on merit,” and the law was a content-based restriction of speech that ignored rigorous scrutiny, Kelly told The Republic at the time. . Content-based laws are generally considered unconstitutional and are subject to the most stringent forms of judicial review, subjecting them to intense scrutiny.
Mr Tutsi then set a one-week deadline for government officials to defend the law if they wished.
Last year, the Attorney General’s Office refused to defend the new law, saying it was not the “proper” authority to do so. According to AZ Miller. AZ Miller also reported that other defendants in the original lawsuit, the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, also declined to defend the law for the same reason.
“Resolving this issue and permanently off the books is a victory for all to exercise their First Amendment right to record government officials from public places.” Republic Editor-in-Chief Greg Burton said.
