Bill would harshen penalty for crimes during protests

A legislative committee advanced a bill on Monday that would create a new crime called “violent or disorderly assembly” in response to recent protests against police.

The bill would enact harsher penalties for certain crimes when committed during a violent or disorderly assembly.

The “violent or disorderly assembly” charge would be defined as damaging property or hurting someone while intending to riot or unlawfully assemble with at least seven other people. It would be a class 6 felony.

The bill’s primary sponsor, Rep. Bret Roberts, RMaricopa, told The Arizona Republic he pushed for the bill due to a rise in protests and wanted the harsher penalties to further dissuade people from turning to violence.

House Bill 2309 advanced through the Military Affairs and Public Safety committee. If signed into law, it would change the following when done during a disorderly assembly:

Enact a minimum of six months in jail for someone convicted of assaulting an officer, which is already automatically considered aggravated assault under Arizona law.

Make pointing a laser pointer at a peace officer a class 6 felony as opposed to a class 1 misdemeanor.

Make criminal damage worth more than $250 but less than $1,000 a class 6 felony instead of a class 1 misdemeanor.

Make obstructing a public thoroughfare a class 6 felony versus a class 1 misdemeanor.

Make a public nuisance charge a class 6 felony instead of a class 2 misdemeanor.

Make abuse of venerated objects a class 6 felony instead of a class 2 misdemeanor.

Make using fireworks a class 6 felony.

Current bill language would let protesters be held in jail for 12 hours

The bill’s current language would also require a person to be held in jail for at least 12 hours unless a magistrate judge found it unlikely the person would resume criminal behavior upon release. One convicted of violent or disorderly assembly would also be barred from being employed by the state, county, city or political subdivision, and barred from receiving most public benefits.

However, during a phone interview with The Arizona Republic, Roberts said he planned to introduce a floor amendment to the bill that would remove such language.

“With that floor amendment, I don’t think there would be an issue on constitutionality,” Roberts said, referring to the mandatory 12-hour hold. He said others convinced him to remove language that would bar someone from receiving public benefits, as he believes people should have the opportunity to reform themselves.

Civil advocacy groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona have criticized the bill for being overly broad and potentially criminalizing the act of protesting.

“HB 2309 and SB 1125 would stifle our rights by charging a person with a felony even if they do not commit an act of violence or property damage,” the organization posted on its website. “If passed, people making their voices heard with tactics from the Civil Rights era — like sit-ins, boycotts, and the March to Selma — could be sent to prison.”

During the hearing Monday, progressive lobbyist Marilyn Rodriguez spoke on behalf of the ACLU of Arizona, saying, “There is no assurance that these laws would be applied consistently, regardless of one’s political leanings ... What we need is accountability from law enforcement and to root out corruption and we need a system of justice that does not allow the kind of abuses we have seen from Maricopa County Attorney’s Office that this bill would further perpetuate.”

Last week, the office dismissed a case with gangrelated charges stemming from an October protest.

The ACLU of Arizona did not immediately respond to The Republic’s request for comment.

A similar bill that would have enacted harsher penalties for crimes committed during protests died last week, but this bill has far more listed supporters.

Still, hundreds of people have listed themselves as being opposed to the bill, dwarfing the number of public supporters.

Roberts defended the bill, saying it was a matter of public safety.

“I support the First Amendment, you know, free speech,” Roberts said. “But there’s a portion of that that says ‘peaceably assemble.’ And when you cross that line of where you’re failing to peaceably assemble, then that’s where I have a problem with it.”

Roberts said he didn’t know when exactly the bill would be heard before the Rules Committee, noting that it depended on the agenda how quickly he could get the floor amendment posted.

When asked if he had spoken with Gov. Doug Ducey about the bill or whether he thinks Ducey would sign it into law if it landed on his desk, Roberts said he hadn’t but likely wouldn’t have received a concrete answer if he had.

“He typically doesn’t get involved in legislation before it gets to his desk,” Roberts said. “I mean, that’s just kind of a general stance of the Governor’s Office. They don’t try to — they try not to weigh in on legislation beforehand.”