A new body camera ordinance was approved Tuesday by the Mobile City Council, but not until after a lengthy debate over whether the council was overstepping its legal authority in doing so.

The council’s 6-1 vote came after City Attorney Ricardo Woods recommended council members tweak some of the ordinance’s language to ensure it did not appear to be giving a directive to city employees, which he claims would be a violation of the 39-year-old Alabama state law that established Mobile’s form of government called the “Zoghby Act.”

On a separate but related matter, the council opted to wait 45 days before voting on an ordinance that prohibits “no-knock” warrants and “pre-dawn” raids by police largely out of concern that it represented a directive to a city agency, which could be a violation of the Zoghby Act.

“From a legal standpoint, the verbiage (of the ordinances) matters,” said Woods, concerned over the body cam ordinance’s inclusion of the word “shall.” He said that word illustrated a “directive” to city employees, which would represent a violation of the Zoghby Act.

Some council members were frustrated with the explanation, saying that Woods’ interpretation of the state law would hamstring council members from doing their jobs as a legislative branch.

“What is clearly happening here is the Zoghby Act is being used to weaponize against the council and put fear up here,” said Councilman William Carroll.

Councilman Joel Daves said Woods’ logic would limit the council from doing anything, such as imposing speeding ticket fines because it could be construed as a directive to the mayor’s administration or someone else.

“It’s just simply not the case,” Daves said.

Woods acknowledged that the current ordinances represent policies that Stimpson has in place. But he also said that another future mayoral administration might disagree with the policies, and that including words directing the city’s executive staff to do something “might become an issue.”

“Will it cause any problems?” Woods said. “Probably not. The administration is doing the same things. The issue is only … who gets to give this directive.”

The disagreement over the Zoghby Act brought back memories of 2018, when Mobile Mayor Sandy Stimpson’s administration filed a lawsuit against the council over a dispute over Zoghby authorities. In essence, the court case represented the city suing itself.

Councilwoman Gina Gregory, the lone “No” vote, said she did not want a replay.

“I’ve been through a lawsuit against this council by the administration for overstepping our bounds,” Gregory said, advocating for a 45-day wait before voting on any ordinance and allowing enough time for Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall to review them. “It was not pleasant. I don’t want us to go there again.”

Some council members have been hesitant toward forwarding the proposed ordinances to Marshall for review, citing concerns over his political aspirations.

Woods told the media after the meeting that the Stimpson administration “has no interest in challenging this issue in court.”

Said Gregory, “We do not direct employees. If (an ordinance) affects all citizens, that’s one thing. But if we direct specific employees, that’s another.”

The two ordinances surfaced in December as an answer by council members following months of complaints about policing.

The body cam ordinance essentially codifies Alabama state law, and does not include anything that goes above and beyond what the Legislature has already adopted.

Under the ordinance, any body cam video in custody by the Mobile Police Department “shall be disclosed” in response to any properly made request unless that request is contrary to state law. A written statement identifying the legal reason for a non-disclosure “shall be given” whenever there is a denial to allow someone to view body cam footage.

The other ordinance on no-knock warrants and pre-dawn raids would codify a policy that Stimpson has had in place since November, following the tragic shooting of a 16-year-old who was killed by police during a pre-dawn raid. The teenager was not the person who police were looking for. The ban includes limited exceptions.

Both ordinances were opposed by a large contingency of police who showed up to a council meeting last month to show their concerns. One police sergeant claimed during the council’s Dec. 13 meeting that passing the ordinances would foster “mistrust” in the communities they serve.