Arizona bill would prohibit surveillance network without getting residents' public vote

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. And if voters refuse, that would most immediately wipe out automated license plate readers that many police departments already have.

But the measure by the Queen Creek Republican, approved Wednesday by the Senate Government Committee with bipartisan support, actually would go further, requiring 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 highways to monitor traffic.

But what is clear is that, even with voter approval in any community, House Bill 2917 is designed to install strict limits on not just how the information from these cameras is used but, more to the point, how long it could be saved.

Under the terms of the bill, that 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 setting up a surveillance system. And that includes everything from going to religious services or visiting an attorney to going to a news media outlet.

It even protects against surveillance, by 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."

What prompted all this was the growing awareness that cities and police departments across Arizona have contracted with Flock Safety Systems.

The automated license plate readers the company provides can provide instantaneous alerts when a specific vehicle is being sought. More to the point, they also retain data for some time, enabling law enforcement to trace a specific vehicle's movement.

There have been reports of abuse, including one police agency in Texas tapping into Flock's nationwide cameras to track a woman who they claimed had a self-administered abortion.

Some local governments have voluntarily canceled those contracts.

Sen. Kevin Payne (R-Peoria) working with police, crafted a measure to put in some guardrails, including how the data collected must be stored, who can access it, as well as penalties for unlawful disclosure.

All that left Hoffman unimpressed, saying the proposal was so full of loopholes that someone "could drive a Mack truck" through it. He said it would amount to a license for wholesale government surveillance of Arizonans.

"I am a no surveillance guy," he told colleagues. "I do not think the state should be able to surveil us under any circumstances."

And the record, said Hoffman, reflects why that's the best position.

He specifically cited the Patriot Act, approved by Congress weeks after the 2001 hijacking of planes which crashed into the two World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon. That law increased the power of police agencies to do surveillance and searches without first getting warrants, get bulk medical, phone and library records, and seize more personal data from electronic communications.

Hoffman said if there is to be some limited level of government surveillance, it should require public input and public vote and "not be up to some highly persuadable, usually staff-led city council members or county supervisors."

So his legislation includes a mandate for public notice with details of the type and number of government mass surveillance networks proposed, the cost, and how the data will be handled, retained and destroyed. Then there must be for at least two public hearings, separated by at least 30 days

Only then can the government body meet. And if two thirds of the council or board agrees, then the issue would go to voters who would have to approve the plan by a 60% margin.

Even with voter approval, other restrictions would remain. That means cameras could only scan and record license plates, without the ability to record or analyze images of anyone in a vehicle.

And if there is no a match to a license plate linked to an active warrant or alert, there's that requirement to destroy data within three minutes.

All this is raising concern among law enforcement, according to Mike Pooley, chief of the Apache Junction Police Department.

"We understand that the technology that's out there is something we've never seen before," said Pooley, who is the president of the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police. "And we do agree that there should be some type of guardrails that keep people safe."

But Pooley said that, as written, it 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.

But Pooley also made a pitch for continued use of license plate readers, saying a fatal hit-and-run accident in his city was resolved only because police were able to use the devices to track down the vehicle.

The concerns express 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."

Kuby said, though, she wants to be sure that nothing in this measure outlaws the cameras now used by police to detect speeders and those who run red lights. Hoffman said that's not his intent.

But there is a separate proposal to ask voters statewide whether such photo enforcement should be allowed. That has yet to get final approval.