Amid increased scrutiny over police-involved shootings across the country, Arizona lawmakers are poised to pass a bill that would keep secret the names of officers who use deadly force for 60 days. 
 
 Critics call Senate Bill 1445 an attack on government transparency at a time when American police departments are trying to earn the public's trust after a series of controversial shootings. 
 
 The bill would prevent law enforcement agencies statewide from releasing the names of police officers "involved in a use of deadly physical force incident that results in death or serious physical injury" for 60 days. 
 
 This includes when the officer is killed; the next of kin or department can agree to release the name earlier in those cases. An officer's disciplinary history could also be released, but identifying information would be redacted. The name would also be released if an officer is charged. 
 
 "People cannot believe in what they are not permitted to observe," said attorney David Bodney, who specializes in First Amendment and public records law. "When a law enforcement officer is involved in a deadly force incident, the trust deficit only grows deeper." 
 
 “ You’re actually increasing tension between the community and the police that serve them.” 
 
 "This is about protecting the welfare of an officer who is not a suspect," said Levi Bolton, a retired Phoenix police officer and executive director of the Arizona Police Association, which backed the bill. He said the delay would mean the name is released when investigators have a clearer picture of what occurred. 
 
 "You still get the 'when,' the 'where' and the 'how' if we know it — you just don't get the 'who,'" Bolton said. 
 
 The bill passed in the Arizona House of Representatives on Wednesday with a 44-13 vote, and is expected to go back to the Senate this week. An earlier version of the bill with a longer restriction of 90 days already sailed through the Senate with a 23-6 vote in February. 
 
 Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey would have to sign the bill into law. His office did not respond to a request for comment. The bill's sponsor, state Sen. Steve Smith, a Republican, did not return calls this week. 
 
 Play Facebook 
 
 Twitter 
 
 Embed Phoenix Police Shooting Criticized 1:49 autoplay autoplay Copy this code to your website or blog 
 
 The American Civil Liberties Union blasted the bill as a step backwards for the state. Keeping an officer's name secret would make it easier to cover up errors or abuse, said Alessandra Soler, executive director of the ACLU of Arizona. Current law allows police to withhold records over safety concerns in some circumstances. Officers' home addresses don't have to be disclosed. 
 
 "At a time when the entire country is raising legitimate questions about why so many black men are dying at the hands of police, the state of Arizona is moving in the opposite direction and becoming less transparent," she said. "It's certainly not going to improve police-community relations." 
 
 Smith sponsored the bill after a pair of controversial police shootings in Arizona. 
 
 After former Phoenix Police Chief Daniel Garcia released the name of the police officer who fatally shot Rumain Brisbon, an unarmed black man, in December, there were fears that protesters would march on the officer's home. None ever did so, but Bolton said it "sent a chill factor up and down our thought process." 
 
 In Pinal County, sheriff's officials said a deputy received threats after video appeared to show a suspect with his hands up shortly before the deputy fatally shot him in January of 2014. The deputy's home was placed under 24-hour guard for a time, Pinal County sheriff's Chief Deputy Steve Henry told a state senate committee in February. 
 
 "For us, if we would have been able to keep that deputy's official photograph and official name out of the news media for a certain amount of time, for at least for a cooling-off period, then perhaps some of this negative publicity would have been mitigated," Henry said. 
 
 “ People cannot believe in what they are not permitted to observe” 
 
 Ferguson, Missouri, Police Officer Darren Wilson went into hiding after he shot Michael Brown, an unarmed black man, in August, sparking nationwide protests. A grand jury declined to indict Wilson, but he later resigned. 
 
 State Rep. Reginald Bolding, a Democrat who represents the Phoenix area, said the proposed law will increase skepticism of the police. 
 
 "This is being packaged as a cooling-off period. What many people in the community believe is this could build a covering-up period," Bolding said. "You're actually increasing tension between the community and the police that serve them." 
 
 The Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police also opposes the bill because it takes control away from department heads, a representative for the group said. 
 
 Channel Powe, a community advocate in Phoenix, said her group plans to deliver a petition against the bill to the governor this week. 
 
 "You have a community with a history of mistrust of police, and now we want to hide our identity from you when we get into a situation where someone loses their life," she said. "There's zero accountability." ||||| Miriam Wasser 
 
 Update 3/17/15 7:30 p.m.: An amendment to SB 1445 passed in the House Wednesday afternoon. The vote was 44 to 13, with three members not voting. (View the full voting breakdown here) 
 
 Original story follows: 
 
 Community leaders and members of the ACLU gathered on the capital lawn this morning to speak out against SB 1445, a controversial bill that "limits the release of the name of a peace officer who is involved in a use of deadly physical force incident for 60 days." 
 
 It's scheduled to be read for the third time this afternoon in the House, where it's expected to pass and soon move on to the Governor's office. 
 
 Community member Channel Powe said the bill is "a black eye on Arizona." She urged lawmakers to vote against this "immoral and unconstitutional" measure that "limits transparency and promotes discrimination." 
 
 Arizona ACLU Executive Director, Alessandra Soler, called the bill "un-American" for "taking away the public's right to know." (An earlier version of the bill actually mandated that the names be kept secret for 90 days.) She and others say that secrecy brews distrust, and that the bill "creates a secret police force, which is the antithesis of democracy." 
 
 See also: 
 
 -Bill to Withhold Names of Officers Involved in Violent Incidents Advances in AZ House 
 
 -Arizona Senate Passes Bill to Delay Releasing Identities of Police Involved in Shootings 
 
 No supporters of the bill were present this morning, but in the past, they've argued that a "cooling off period" after a violent and controversial event will help protect police officers and their families. The bill's sponsor, state Senator Steve Smith, has said it will stop a "whimsical mob" from "roaming the streets looking for blood." 
 
 As multiple speakers this morning pointed out, there are already laws on the books that allow law enforcement agencies to withhold information about officers for safety reasons. For instance--and as stated in the SB 1445 overview--A.R.S. § 39-123 says records should be public "unless the release is not in the best interest of the state, taking into consideration the privacy, confidentiality, and safety of the officer." 
 
 Screenshot/Arizona Legislature 
 
 In defending his bill, Smith often references the killing of Rumain Brisban, and the "angry mobs" that protested after. Brisban, a 34-year old unarmed black man was shot by a white police officer in December 2014. Many in the community find Smith's remarks not only insulting, but factually incorrect, since no one went to the officer's house after the incident, they say. 
 
 "There has been no killing, and no evidence of any [officer] whose name has been released...getting hurt," Pastor Warren Stewart jr. told the crowd. "This bill calls for secrecy, and secrecy is suspicious." 
 
 One particularly poignant speaker was Lawrence Robinson, a professor at Arizona Summit Law School. "This bill, SB 1445, is a solution seeking a problem that doesn't exist. It is allowing the activist wing of our Arizona Legislature to make a political point that is not only going to jeopardize police, it's going to jeopardize the trust that our community is based up." 
 
 He went on to say the bill makes it seem that police officers, the "actors that we've trusted for years and years in this society, now have something to hide...Do not create another wedge, do not create another level of distrust, do not create a situation that we've seen in other parts of this nation where communities become so upset, and the tension becomes so high, that they chose to take action into their own hands that is not only violent but unproductive. This action, SB 1445, is violent and unproductive." 
 
 Got a tip? Send it to: Miriam Wasser. 
 
 Follow Valley Fever on Twitter at @ValleyFeverPHX. 
 
 Follow Miriam Wasser at @MiriamWasser. 
 
 
 
 Sponsor Content ||||| Sorry, this zipcode is not in our deliverable area for this subscription service. 
 
 Re-enter zip code or sign up for digital access. 
 
 Get digital access ||||| Viewpoint: How can we hold law enforcement accountable if we don't know what they're doing? 
 
 Some police officers wear cameras on their ball caps or glasses. (Photo: The Republic) Story Highlights The Arizona Legislature is perilously close to banning access to basic police information. 
 
 We should think long and hard before we pass laws to conceal public records from the public. 
 
 Our democracy is premised on the belief that an informed citizenry produces good government. 
 
 The videos are chilling, and they trigger our emotions. Even when they have been edited to remove the violence, their images rip us apart, whether the story ends in the death of a teenage suspect or a peace officer on patrol. 
 
 The data likewise leaves us stunned. Last year, ProPublica analyzed an FBI report on over 12,000 police homicides from 1980-2012 and found that Black teenagers are 21 times more likely to be shot and killed by police than White teenagers. 
 
 Put the shooting death of Michael Brown last year in Ferguson, Mo., to one side. In the span of only five days this month, there were three police killings of unarmed, or apparently unarmed, Black men in communities across this country — from Aurora, Colo., to Madison, Wisc., to DeKalb County, Ga. 
 
 "This is a bigger issue than Ferguson," Sen. Claire McCaskill, D.-Mo., told NBC's Savannah Guthrie recently. "We have a disconnect between some communities in this country and law enforcement. And law enforcement only works if the people of this country believe in it." 
 
 RELATED: Five facts about police cameras 
 
 MORE: Can police body cameras make a difference? 
 
 But people cannot believe in what they are not permitted to observe. For that reason, we should think long and hard before we pass laws to conceal public records from the public, especially when those records go to the heart of law enforcement. 
 
 Our Legislature is perilously close to banning access to basic police information. The Arizona Senate recently passed a bill, Senate Bill 1445, that would prohibit law-enforcement agencies from releasing the name of an officer "who is involved in an incident that involves the use of deadly physical force and that results in either the death or serious physical injury of the officer or another person" for 90 days. 
 
 OUR VIEW: Police union's bill only feeds the rumor mill 
 
 Sponsored by Sen. Steve Smith, R-Maricopa, the bill would prohibit the release of officers' names in all deadly use of force incidents, including those in which the officer is killed. While the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association and the Pinal County Sheriff's Office support the measure, testimony against SB 1445 has been overwhelming. Many members of the African-American community have testified against this bill, emphasizing that the more cops withhold information concerning deadly force incidents, the greater the distrust. 
 
 There are plenty of other reasons to oppose SB 1445, just as there will be plenty of other reasons to release an officer's name sooner than 90 days after a death or serious injury. Without the name, people will speculate, which leads to inaccurate news coverage. That's not a good thing. 
 
 Alternatively, in the digital age, the officer's name will likely come out sooner than 90 days after the violence, which would leave our law enforcement agencies looking silly, prohibited from disclosing what we already know, only worsening a trust deficit. This past week, the House of Representatives passed an amended version of the bill requiring concealment for 60 days, but the problem remains the same. 
 
 Worse, the House added language that would prohibit the release of any information, whenever "disciplinary action" is taken against a peace officer, that would identify the officer. 
 
 CLOSE ASU Police Officer Stewart Ferrin was seen struggling with an ASU Assistant Professor on dash-cam video that went viral last May. On Saturday, he spoke about his termination notice handed to him last we 
 
 There's another bill, SB 1300, that should be studied carefully before enacted into law. Introduced by Sen. Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, SB 1300 would govern the use of body cameras by law enforcement. Rather than treating body cameras like other police records, this bill declares that a "body camera recording and any electronic data associated with the recording is not a public record," but rather exempt from the Arizona Public Records Law. 
 
 While an amended version of SB 1300 allows persons to sue for access, it alters the legal balance and stacks the deck heavily against requestors. It upends the law's strong presumption in favor of access to public records and requires citizens to prove that the public's "need" to view the recording outweighs all other interests. 
 
 Tellingly, the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police, the Arizona Prosecuting Attorneys' Advisory Council and the Fraternal Order of the Police opposed SB 1300 for one reason or another. Yet instead of studying the issue first and legislating later, the Senate passed a bill that would create a "study committee" after the law goes into effect. 
 
 Fortunately, the House Military Affairs & Public Safety Committee approved amendments last week that would eliminate all substantive elements of the bill except the creation of a study committee. 
 
 A report issued this month by the President's Task Force on 21st Century Policing recognized that when police officers turn on their body cameras, and tell citizens the cameras are recording their behavior, "everyone behaves better." The report urged law enforcement agencies to create a "culture of transparency and accountability" to build public trust. 
 
 Last year, the Police Executive Research Forum issued recommendations on Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program. The Forum found that police agencies "must be in compliance with the state's public disclosure laws (often known as Freedom of Information Acts)." Unlike the approach of SB 1300, the Forum recommended "a broad disclosure policy to promote agency transparency and accountability." 
 
 To be sure, not everything depicted on a body-cam recording should be publicly disclosed. Sometimes personal privacy and investigatory imperatives will trump the public's right to know. But this bill would turn our public records law on its head, making public inspection all but impossible. 
 
 David Bodney (Photo: handout) 
 
 While they may be well intended, these bills should be stopped before they make bad situations worse. News organizations depend on prompt access to information to arm our communities with knowledge that can help us catch perpetrators and build stronger, safer communities. 
 
 The beauty of our Public Records Law is its reliance on common sense, not arbitrary prohibitions. Under existing law, the presumption of prompt public access can be overcome upon a showing by police that disclosure would violate privacy, confidentiality or the best interests of the state. 
 
 Our democracy is premised on the belief that an informed citizenry produces good government. Sometimes our legislators, who extol the benefits of limited government, need reminding that perhaps the greatest protection against an all-powerful state is the public's right to know what its government is doing. 
 
 David J. Bodney is a partner in the law firm of Ballard Spahr LLP, and serves as counsel to The Arizona Republic. 
 
 Read or Share this story: http://azc.cc/1HhsJUM
– Darren Wilson went into hiding after shooting Michael Brown, and when a Phoenix cop killed an unarmed black man in December, police were afraid protesters would mob his home, NBC News reports. The latter never happened, but Arizona Rep. Steven Smith is sponsoring Senate Bill 1445, which would keep secret for 60 days the names of officers involved in shootings "that [result] in death or serious physical injury." "This is about protecting the welfare of an officer who is not a suspect," the director of the Arizona Police Association tells NBC. But critics say the law would undermine the tenuous relationship between police and community and possibly hide abuse or mistakes. "At a time when the entire country is raising legitimate questions about why so many black men are dying at the hands of police, the state of Arizona is … becoming less transparent," the director of the ACLU of Arizona tells NBC. An officer's name can still be released before the 60-day moratorium is up if the family or department OKs it, or if the officer is charged. And the bill has been amended from its original 90-day freeze—it passed in the House 44-13 last week and now heads back in amended form to the Senate, per the Eastern Arizona Courier. Protesters in the capital Wednesday refuted Smith's assertion that the law would stop a "whimsical mob [from] roaming the streets looking for blood" and noted there are already laws that allow for such secrecy if the officer is in danger, the Phoenix New Times reports. "This is being packaged as a cooling-off period; what many people in the community believe is this could build a covering-up period," Democratic state Rep. Reginald Bolding tells NBC. "The beauty of our Public Records Law is its reliance on common sense, not arbitrary prohibitions," adds David Bodney in an op-ed for the Arizona Republic.