Before retiring to dry heat and a second career in politics, Arizona state Sen. John Kavanagh arrested criminals in Times Square and other New York-area transit areas -- and one heroin bust 40 years ago, he says, inspired his new, instantly controversial bill to criminalize close-up filming of police in public.

The legislation would require people to be at least 20 feet away while recording “law enforcement activity” or farther if officers decide that’s needed. Recording inside private buildings such as homes would be allowed from “an adjacent room or area” unless an officer objects.

Violations would be petty offenses or, if a warning is given, misdemeanors carrying up to 30 days in jail.

The Republican lawmaker says his reason for introducing the bill is not wholly related to the recent and sustained surge in footage showing police allegedly mistreating or killing people.

“In one word: Wilson Pickett,” Kavanagh says of his inspiration.

In the early 1970s, Kavanagh says, he arrested a bandmate of the popular “Mustang Sally” singer at John F. Kennedy International Airport. He had the man against a wall after finding syringes in a clam-shell jewelry case when Pickett approached and politely asked, “Is this gonna take long?” he recalls.

The next day, the ex-Port Authority cop says, he was told the arrestee tossed a package of heroin behind a television as he looked away.

“I’ll never forget how I was distracted by someone being behind me while I was making an arrest,” he says. “He could have pulled out a gun just as easily and shot me. And now you have people everywhere with these video cameras in their phones who are walking up behind cops when they are making an arrest.”

Many recent videos of alleged police misconduct -- such as the fatal shooting of South Carolina man Walter Scott as he ran away from a policeman -- appear to have been shot from more than 20 feet, he says. One example where cameras seemed unacceptably close, he says, was when police corralled teens at a Texas community pool last year, and roughly detained a bathing suit-wearing girl.

The way Kavanagh sees it, high-resolution cameras in phones should allow someone standing 20 feet away to zoom in and have a good-quality shot. In fact, he says, the distance may have the added benefit of a wide shot that captures more of what’s happening.

But the bill already is facing stiff opposition and claims of unconstitutionality from the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, which recently killed a state revenge-porn law it argued was so poorly written that it would criminalize bathtub baby photos.

The fury of civil liberties advocates caught him off guard, Kavanagh claims. “I’m actually shocked that the ACLU opposes this,” he says.

Although the bill says explicitly it does not establish a right to film police, its author says it “kind of establishes if it’s reasonable and there’s no other factors present, someone can tape from 20 feet. So I don’t know what their problem is, especially since you get a better, wider view of the scene and can zoom in as though you were a foot away.”

Recording police often is not tolerated in the United States, though the alleged crimes committed by the filmmaker are not specific to recording law enforcement but instead are for violating anti-wiretapping laws in the minority of states that require the consent of all parties or other laws.

Journalists also are arrested with some regularity by American police, and often it’s allegedly done to prevent the recording of protests, though authorities deny it.

Mickey Osterreicher, general counsel of the National Press Photographers Association, says he believes courts would strike down the proposed Arizona restriction for violating the First Amendment.

“No one needs the permission of a law enforcement officer to photograph or record police activity on a public street, period,” he says.

Though the Supreme Court has not addressed the matter, many appeals courts have. In Glik v. Cunniffe, the Boston-based 1st Circuit found citizens had a right to record police in public. The 7th Circuit found in ACLU v. Alvarez that Illinois' wiretapping law unconstitutionally prohibited filming police.

In the 9th Circuit, which includes Arizona, judges found in Fordyce v. City of Seattle there’s a First Amendment right "to film matters of public interest."

Osterreicher points out that if the Arizona legislation becomes law, there would be practical issues with enforcement. "People don't walk around with tape measures," he says, "[and] if the officer approaches you and you have a camera in your hand, do you have a duty to retreat to maintain that distance?"

James Weinstein, a law professor at Arizona State University, believes a legal struggle to overturn Kavanagh’s restriction might be complicated. A lawsuit from opponents without an arrest -- such as in ACLU v. Alvarez -- might not work as there’s some ambiguity about the bill’s constitutionality, he says, leaving upending the law to individuals arrested for violations.

Weinstein says filming is protected by the First Amendment because it's an essential precondition of speech, but also can be subject to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions.

"The question is, is 20 feet a reasonable time, place and manner restriction?" he says. "That's the problem with this ordinance: sometimes 20 feet would be unreasonable."

Weinstein says in some cases he could see it as necessary for film-makers to get closer, perhaps to capture audio or to get a better angle.

"There will be occasions were the 20 foot rule would be unconstitutional, but I'm not sure that would make the statute unconstitutional on its face," he says. However, he adds: "When the Supreme Court gets this, I think they will say there's a First Amendment right to create recordings of police."

Kavanagh says he plans to amend the legislation so it only will apply to third parties filming police encounters, to leave wiggle room for people filming their own arrest, which he says in some situations may be reasonable.