A bill, HB2208, that will prohibit the use of a photo enforcement system by state and local authorities, passed in the Arizona House of Representatives this week. The bill passed on a 31-27-1 vote.
The vote fell mostly along party lines. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Travis Grantham, will now be considered in the Senate where it is expected to die at the hands of Senate Transportation and Technology Committee Chair Sen. Bob Worsley.
The votes of southern Arizona democrats against the bill surprised constituents. The residents of the area’s largest community, Tucson, outlawed photo radar in 2015. Prop. 201, which banned red-light cameras and speed vans in city limits, passed by an overwhelming margin. The vote of the democrat representatives appeared to be a slap in the face of Tucson’s southern Arizona voters.
In 2015, then Arizona Senator Kelli Ward, sponsored legislation, SB1167, which would have prevented police and sheriff’s departments from using red-light and speed safety cameras was voted down by a handful of Republicans and all Democrats.
In that same year, a former chief executive officer of Redflex, a red light camera vendor, pleaded guilty to participating in an eight-year bribery and fraud scheme. Karen L. Finley, 55, of Cave Creek, Arizona, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit federal programs bribery and honest services wire and mail fraud, according to the ADI.
The ADI reported at the time of Finley’s plea, that “from December 2005 to February 2013, Finley served as CEO of Redflex. As part of her plea agreement, Finley admitted that, between 2005 and 2013, she participated in a scheme in which the company made campaign contributions to elected public officials in the cities of Columbus and Cincinnati through a consultant retained by the company. According to admissions made in connection with her plea, Finley and others, including another executive of the company, agreed to provide the conduit campaign contributions with the understanding that the elected public officials would assist the company in obtaining or retaining municipal contracts, including a photo red light enforcement contract with the City of Columbus. Finley also admitted she and her co-conspirators concealed the true nature and source of the payments by the consultant’s submission and the company’s payment of false invoices for “consulting services,” which funds the consultant then provided to the campaigns of the elected public officials.”
HB2208 Fact Sheet:
Provisions
1. Prohibits the use of a photo enforcement system by state and local authorities to identify persons violating speeding or traffic statutes or ordinances. (Sec. 5)
2. Defines a photo enforcement system.
a. The definition is taken from A.R.S. § 28-601 and expanded to include a city or town ordinance violation. (Sec. 3)
3. Repeals various statutes relating to photo enforcement systems. (Sec. 4, 6)
4. Contains a legislative intent clause. (Sec. 7)
5. Makes technical and conforming changes. (Sec. 1, 2, 3)
Current Law
A.R.S. § 28-601 defines a photo enforcement system as a device substantially consisting of a radar unit or sensor linked to a camera or other recording device that produces one or more photographs, microphotographs, videotapes or digital or other recorded images of a vehicle’s license plate for the purpose of identifying violators of speeding and traffic statute.
Every state or local authority using photo radar must adopt standards and specifications informing persons that a photo enforcement system is present and operational, which includes:
• At least two signs must be placed before a photo enforcement system, one sign must be approximately 300 feet before and any additional signs must be more than 300 feet before a system;
• A sign clearly stating the posted speed limit must be placed in between the two signs listed above; and
• Signs indicating a photo enforcement system must be removed or covered when the system is no longer present or operational.
A.R.S. § 28-1206 prohibits the use of a photo enforcement system on a state highway to identify persons violating speeding or traffic statutes.
If a person receives a notice of violation in the mail for a speeding or traffic statute or ordinance that is obtained using a photo enforcement system, the person does not have to identify who is in the photo or respond to the notice of violation. The notice of violation must state:
• The notice is not a court issued document and the recipient is under no obligation to identify the person or respond to the notice; and
• Failure to respond to the notice may result in official service that may result in an additional fee being levied (A.R.S. § 28-1602).