Key Points
-
Lawmakers propose comprehensive government surveillance regulation
-
Legislation requires public vote before establishing surveillance networks
-
Law enforcement agencies worry the bill may hinder crime-solving efforts
Arizona lawmakers are moving to enact what could be the most comprehensive regulation of government surveillance in the nation.
Legislation crafted by Sen. Jake Hoffman would prohibit any state or local agency from establishing a surveillance network without first notifying residents and then getting their permission at a public vote. If voters do not approve, it would almost immediately wipe out the automated license plate readers that many police departments have already been using.
But the measure by the Queen Creek Republican, approved March 26 by the Senate Government Committee with bipartisan support, would go far enough to require a public vote on any “government mass surveillance network.” That is defined to include monitoring by any technological devices, whether stationary, mobile or satellite.
Still being worked out are some details, like how any of this would affect cameras at intersections, on roads and on highways to monitor traffic.
But what is clear is that, even with voter approval in any community, HB 2917 is designed to impose strict limits not just on how the information from these cameras is used, but also on how long it can be saved.
Under the bill, it is defined as no more than three minutes. And if the information from the camera or other equipment doesn’t turn up a “hit” for someone who is wanted or someone being sought in the case of a missing or abducted person, then the data automatically would be “irreversibly destroyed in a manner that renders the data unrecoverable.”
Hoffman said this is by design. He said it prevents the government from creating a record of where individuals have been.
“We’re talking about free people, moving about their business, moving about the state of Arizona, their relationships in a free society,” Hoffman said.
And HB 2917, which now needs approval of the full Senate before going to the House, even has some absolute prohibitions against setting up cameras where they could be used to monitor vehicles or individuals who are traveling to or engaged in “constitutionally protected activity” — even if local voters approve a surveillance system. And that includes everything from going to religious services or visiting an attorney to going to a news media outlet or an abortion facility.
It even protects against surveillance, in whatever form, of political protests, marches, demonstrations or rallies.
“I may dislike it to the end of the Earth,” Hoffman said. “But even an anti-ICE protest, you are protected because, in the United States, as long as you’re not violent and as long as you’re not obstructing law enforcement, that is a constitutionally protected activity.”
All this is raising concern among law enforcement, according to Mike Pooley, chief of the Apache Junction Police Department.
Pooley said that, as written, the bill would eliminate body-worn cameras by officers as well as cameras set up to monitor special events.
“We use cameras to monitor people coming in and out of large events,” he said. Also endangered, Pooley said, would be cameras used for security in public buildings like schools — and even in the state Senate.
Hoffman said none of this is designed to preclude such cameras, or even drones to monitor crowds. Instead, the focus appears to be whether those cameras can track — and record — any individual’s movements.
The concerns expressed by Pooley were enough to convince Sen. Eva Diaz to vote against the measure. The Tolleson Democrat said she believes the technology has played a role in solving crimes.
But Democratic Sen. Lauren Kuby of Tempe voted in favor.
“I see this as really strengthening privacy protections,” she said.
“It limits government mass surveillance,” Kuby said. “It doesn’t do away with it. And voters can vote to have these systems in their cities and towns.”