Due to protests that turned into looting in Phoenix, Scottsdale and Tucson over the last few nights, Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey declared a statewide curfew starting at 8 p.m. on Sunday, May 31, running nightly for a week through Monday, June 8.
Nationwide protests are in response to the May 25 death of George Floyd by four Minneapolis police officers and compounded by localized protests against police brutality. In Arizona, that would include the death of Dion Johnson by an Arizona Department of Public Safety deputy, also on May 25.
Part of the reason these protests have taken off nationwide is due to the fact that governments have restricted civilian movement for the last two months. Cooped up, forced into unemployment through no fault of their own, told repeatedly of the threat to their life from a virulent disease, many Americans are fearful and angry. Floyd’s death, caught on camera and viewed by millions of Americans who were stuck at home, quickly fueled outrage.
Peaceful daytime protests devolving into nighttime rioting and looting has only affected three major population centers in Arizona, yet Ducey decided to impose a statewide curfew because the best way to swat a fly in the kitchen is to blow up the house with a howitzer.
There should be no surprise that state restrictions affect all of us due to a handful of law-breakers in three cities. Only 11 weeks ago, we warned our readers in our editorial, “Do not surrender your liberty in the fight against COVID-19,” that if governments restricted civil liberties due to the coronavirus without resistance and outrage from the public, governments would waste no time in imposing similar restrictions for the next crises.
We wrote, “Such government tyranny invariably begins with popular support first to resisting a ‘crisis’ and then the tacit or explicit surrender of our liberties and freedoms in the name of safety and security ….
“The government officials who are announcing bans on public gatherings, demanding the closure of businesses or limits to the number of people who can gather appear to be doing so under the guise of emergency powers but in violation of civil liberties ….
“House arrest, blanket business closures and unconstitutional bans on public gathering by executive fiat deny Americans due process as protected by the 1st, 5th and 14th Amendments.”
We are now in the next crisis, dear readers. And Ducey wasted no time with the next round of infringements.
The rights to assemble and protest are constitutionally protected freedoms enshrined in the First Amendment, thus Ducey cannot simply repeal them by fiat. Instead, his curfew order criminalizes all the activities around protesting without criminalizing protesting itself, such as driving to a protest, standing at a protest, sitting at a protest or walking at a protest, stopping only short of “thinking about” a protest.
Rather than a blanket curfew to limit unrest statewide — which might give Ducey some cover that he isn’t trying to curtail constitutional freedoms in a roundabout way — the language of the order excludes all non-protest-y things like driving elsewhere, walking elsewhere and shopping elsewhere.
The order is also nebulous and as ill-defined as Ducey’s executive orders urging Arizonans to stay home during the coronavirus.
It gives local law enforcement significant latitude to do what they need to, which is perfectly reasonable, but state laws already allow police to arrest law breakers for vandalism, property damage, trespassing on private property, blocking traffic, assault on police, etc., without additional powers imposed by a governor who has lost control over the state capital.
A statewide curfew order is unnecessary in most small towns in Arizona. Civilians as well as law enforcement across the state wondered why the governor’s order was so broad, when the vast majority of communities and towns aren’t seeing any protests whatsoever, let alone violent ones necessitating increased police powers.
Note: The protests in Prescott Valley involved two groups of people arguing with each other, not with police and not causing property damage.
Some Northern Arizona law enforcement agencies have explicitly said they have no intention of enforcing this curfew lest they damage their healthy relationship with their communities, or more simply because they do not have the resources to enforce curfews on all of their citizens. Others reposted Ducey’s declaration without comment, and some said they will monitor the situation but likely won’t see anything beyond some folks holding signs on the corner.
It would make far more sense for Ducey and local leaders of towns and cities seeing looting or rioting to impose curfews on those few communities and leave the rest of us in peace, especially those communities that have had peaceful protesters who obey the law.
Christopher Fox Graham
Managing Editor
