Arizona Lawmakers Above the Law!

They make the laws, but do they have to follow them? In the case of photo enforcement while they are in session, the answer is no! The Arizona DPS has granted all AZ lawmakers immunity from non-criminal photo enforcement violations. In Arizona, that’s almost half a year. How can they vote on photo enforcement honestly when they are immune from prosecution? One has to wonder what justification can possibly be made to justify not fining politicians when they do the same thing a regular citizen is cited for? I see, it’s OK when the lawmakers speed, but if a citizen or even a highly trained city policemen does it, no mercy!

In a disturbing trend across the nation, lawmakers increasingly act and behave as if the laws don’t apply to them. From the treasure secretary Geithner not paying his taxes, to the speeding Arizona lawmakers, the trend is growing, and must end soon.

Saturday update: There were some questions about the source of this information. This information was provided by Bart Graves, media coordinator for AZ DPS in response to a question about lawmaker exemption from regular (non-criminal) photo tickets.

Advertisements

8 Comments

  1. Ralph Malph
    Posted June 6, 2009 at 5:19 am | Permalink

    Do you have a source for this or do you just make unsubstantiated claims on this website?

    Bart Graves, Media Relations Coordinator for DPS, said, “While in session, Arizona lawmakers are exempt from all law enforcement action except criminal.” –admin

  2. State Senator Jack Harper
    Posted June 6, 2009 at 12:32 pm | Permalink

    I have never had a photo radar ticket and rarely go more than 10 mph over the “reasonable and prudent” posted speed. There is a provision in the constitution that prevent legislators from being “detained” during session, but the photo cameras do not detain a lawmaker.

    • Ev Mecham
      Posted June 22, 2009 at 7:08 pm | Permalink

      So Senator Harper…. if you think prudent is 75 then you sometimes go 85 mph? Tell us, are you for or against the cameras. Simple question and a simple yes or no will do.

      Not sure what you’re getting at, but DPS has made it clear that 11mph over the posted limit is reasonable and prudent. –admin

      • Ev Mecham
        Posted June 25, 2009 at 12:33 pm | Permalink

        i think it was quote clear what i was getting at…. the senator made it sound like by doing a prudent ( his determination based on ?) that he is not violating any laws…. i am asking him just how fast he thinks prudent is?

        109 mph? 99 mph 90 mph 85 mph ?????

        I think he’s saying that reasonable and prudent is a judgment call and depends on many factors. Factors that a machine cannot evaluate. –admin

      • NO tp 4 Me
        Posted June 25, 2009 at 5:32 pm | Permalink

        here is a judgement call…. on my way home yesturday at the light on warner and val vista the light turned yellow… i saw a vehicle that was 30 yards atleast from the light… in her “reasonable and prudent” mind…. she ran the light from that far back… in fact she entered the intersection ON red… had i not been with my wife i would have turned into her!! i whipped the u-turn to follow her but due to the fact she thought “reasonable and prudent” was going 70 mph down warner road, i was not able to catch up…. thats the problem with “reasonable and prudent”…. most people can not be that subjective…. its like greed for money… they can not help themselves !!

        That’s why we have officers who employ their judgment and issue citations accordingly (to the driver, not to the registered owner). But regardless, while it was a reasonable expectation of yours for her to stop, the prudent driver always makes sure that oncoming traffic is going to stop before making a left turn. If it was yellow, then oncoming traffic has the right of way and you still have to yield. You have the right-of-way to clear the intersection before cross traffic proceeds. –admin

      • NO tp 4 Me
        Posted June 25, 2009 at 8:05 pm | Permalink

        yes i was prudent and waited for the female dog, but she initially started to brake and she was the only oncoming car, i very easily could have started my turn… luckily for me i am a defensive driver, so i watched her break the law…. i have already drafted a letter this morning to ask the gilbert city council to consider red light cameras… it would not surprise me to find out that gilbert, based on per capita, has the highest number of red light accidents in the valley !

  3. Ralph Malph
    Posted June 10, 2009 at 1:36 pm | Permalink

    I inquired about this on the AZ DPS website and this was the response:

    It is Arizona State Law that while the legislate is in session that they do have immunity.

    B. Kenney #6197
    Photo Enforcement
    Highway Patrol Division
    Arizona Department of Public Safety

  4. stephen kandik
    Posted July 13, 2009 at 3:47 pm | Permalink

    no one is above the law read the az constitution sec 13

    ” NO LAW SHALL BE ENACTED GRANTING TO ANY CITIZEN, CLASS OF CITIZEN OR CORPORATION OTHER THEN MUNICIPAL, PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES WHICH UPON THE SAME TERMS, SHALL NOT EQUALLY BELONG TO ALL CITIZENS OR CORPORATIONS”

    or ARTICLE 2 SEC 9

    ” NO LAW GRANTING IRREVOCABLY ANY PRIVILEGE, FRANCHISE, OR IMMUNITY SHALL BE ENACTED”

    all that’s necessary is for the people to push the state attorney general or a branch of law enforcement to act…

    (comment from an out of state visitor who got caught in this local web, because Arizonans appear to be gutless, uneducated or too many Zoloft gone… snap out of it and defend your rights, near as a can tell the people of spain and italy didn’t really find fasism the right path to travel.

    nepalitano was rewarded with home land security, because she demonstrated the willingness to overtly urinate on your rights and usher in this new merger between corporations and governmen, a.t.s. and redflex violate these laws hundereds of times a day with presumed impunity.)


One Trackback/Pingback

  1. […] This past week I have done additional research regarding the lawmakers being above the law (see a previous blog post). To recap, all AZ lawmakers are exempt from non-criminal offenses while they are in session, which […]

Post a Comment

Required fields are marked *
*
*

%d bloggers like this: