Arizona passed a law barring video recording within 8 feet of law enforcement. The ACLU and news organizations are now suing

The law, which was signed by Republican Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey in July, includes some exceptions that allow for passengers to video record during traffic stops, and for the subject of police contact to record, as long as it doesn’t interfere with police actions.

From the start, the law sparked concerns over transparency and accountability. In recent years, cell phone footage of interactions with law enforcement has been viewed as a tool to document instances of police brutality and hold officers accountable. Bystander footage played a notable role in the case of George Floyd, whose death ignited nationwide protests after he was filmed pleading that he couldn’t breathe while being held down by a Minneapolis police officer.

“By allowing police officers to arrest and punish people for simply recording video of their actions, the law creates an unprecedented and facially unconstitutional content-based restriction on speech about an important governmental function,” the lawsuit said.

The plaintiffs said they brought the lawsuit “to prevent Arizona from trampling on their rights to report news, document the activities of public servants, and hold police accountable for their actions toward the people they are sworn to protect and serve.”

Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell, Maricopa County Sheriff Paul Penzone, are named as defendants in their official capacities.

The sheriff said naming him in the lawsuit was “disingenuous and irresponsible.”

“To include me in a lawsuit for which I had no involvement in crafting, vetting or passing is an example of targeting a law enforcement leader for the sake of sensationalization,” Penzone said in a statement to CNN. “There are 15 Sheriff’s and 50-100 police chiefs in Arizona. The ACLU listed my name only as a tactic to harass and target me.”

CNN also reached out to Brnovich and Mitchell’s offices for comments.

“I agreed to run this bill because there are groups hostile to the police that follow them around to videotape police incidents, and they get dangerously close to potentially violent encounters,” Kavanagh wrote, also adding that today’s cell phone cameras would still pick up details from eight feet away.

Among other concerns, plaintiffs argue that complying with the law will be difficult in fluid and crowded situations, like protests. They also say that the law is vague, “‘law enforcement activity’ is defined very broadly,” and it’s unclear what constitutes a “verbal warning.”

The plaintiffs are requesting an injunction to stop enforcement of the law and that the court declare it violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments.