Patriot Groups throughout the Maricopa and North Pinal County area.
House of Representatives
SB 1244 (A.R.S. 1-602)
parents' rights; law enforcement investigation
Sponsors: Senator Gould
Committee on Military Affairs & Public Safety
Caucus and COW
As Transmitted to the Governor
SB 1244 allows a law enforcement officer to make a video or audio recording of a minor without parental consent as long as the recording is made part of, or recorded during, an investigation.
Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 1-602 outlines the Parents’ Bill of Rights. Specifically, statute outlines the liberties and fundamental rights of parents to decide the education, upbringing, and mental and physical health care for their children. A.R.S. § 1-602 identifies that a parent has a right to consent in writing to various investigatory situations, including genetic testing, DNA identification, DNA storage and sharing, a biometric scan of the minor and the right of access to certain records with exceptions.
Currently, parents have the right to consent in writing for any general recording of their child. However, those rights can be waived in different situations, including if the audio recordings and video recordings are made during or as part of a court proceeding, during a criminal forensic interview, security and surveillance of areas and for photo identification cards.
Gee, I wonder if this violates juveniles Fourth Amendment Right’s, perhaps their Fifth Amendment Right’s?
Think maybe a juvenile doesn’t even know he has those rights?
Maybe that was why parent consent was required in the first place?
Progressive creep from the right??????
Watching the video from the Senate COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY Hearing (MINUTE 30:50) for SB 1244, the argument in support of the bill was from the perspective of vehicle stops, vehicle thief and such, with a mention of fighting prostitution.
Inadvertently it also applies to a child (juvenile) who is called into the school office or such, to be interviewed by whomever. Where it may concern a crime and the child may not know about his Constitutional Rights to keep his trap shut. Ya think?
If a crime is not in progress, an exigent circumstance is not present that would warrant a child to void their right to have their parents or legal representation present. Note: there are situations that exclude the parents being present but not excluding legal council for the child before any interview is conducted. I only speak up for the children!
Don’t sign the school handbook as they trick you into giving them rights to represent your child in your absence. Just don’t sign it and say nothing, most the time they keep no record of who returns the rules acknowledgement, (did it for years). If they insist that you sign the handbook, do so under DURESS, state why and seek out other parents to initiate a class action against the school board for interfering with your natural parental rights. If they require a signature, they are required to confirm receipt of and maintain records.
In any event for the protection of the citizenry of all ages, any peace officer of any color, involved in interfacing with the public should be required by law to wear a video and audio recording device at all times while on duty. I’m only agreeing with the comment made in committee, in the video above about the need to protect our law enforcement officers. Gosh, it would only prove the non existence of the Thin Blue Line.
As an added bonus we may see a decrease in what it costs us in taxes to fund these Peace Officer Departments.