SB1018: The Photo Radar Resurrection Act

Sometimes what the legislature does leaves me scratching my head.

This time, Senator Russell Pearce, self-proclaimed anti-photo-radar, conservative Senator from Mesa has worked hard on passing this real headscratcher.

SB1018, “Photo Enforcement Procedures”, as amended, sponsored by Pearce and co-sponsored by Sen. Sylvia Allen and Sen. Thayer Verschoor, enables the following:

1) Allows Redflex, a foreign corporation to directly hire off-duty policemen to serve you photo radar tickets at your home.

2) Allows the service of photo-radar summons to be served to you at your home even though no charge has been filed with the court

3) Extends the amount of time process servers (or off-duty cops) can serve you a photo radar summons from 90 to 120 days

4) (and here’s the real headscratcher, if the previous ones weren’t) retroactively indemnifies County Boards of Supervisors from previous illegal (undercurrent state law) actions they have taken such as passing increases on court service costs.

Given the political orientation (McCainiac, anti-sheriff Joe, anti-Andy Thomas) of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, it’s hard to imagine  why Senator Pearce would find it so important to come to their aid to retroactively indemnify them for their past improper actions.

So here we have the “Liberty Caucus”, Senator Pearce, and Senator Sylvia Allen, and others who are also self-proclaimed anti-photo-radar opponents who are sponsoring and voting for one of the most egregious pro-photo-radar, invasive bills of the entire legislative session.

At this point it’s in the House.  If you don’t like it, call your state Rep.  But, for goodness sakes, ask the Liberty Caucus members what in the world they are doing!

Also, it should be pointed out that the Arizona Republican Party passed a resolution against photo radar in 2009.

http://sonoranalliance.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/RESOLUTION-Photo-Enforcement2-300×187.jpg

http://sonoranalliance.com/2010/02/16/republican-state-senator-linda-gray-ld10-defies-will-of-azgop/

P.S. – Sandy Doty, Resquiat in Pacem, April 2010, our prayers are with you and your family.

 


Comments

  1. $16.50 of every photo radar ticket goes to a politician.

  2. We need to be getting RID of the cameras not promoting them!!!!! When CD 3 candidate Sam Crump was in the legislature he had a bill to BAN the cameras. WHAT are they doing??? Ensuring that we’ll have cameras for years to come!!

  3. Diogidog says

    This is what (even great) legislators do when they have spare time on their hands. They make up sh– and feed it to the masses. It’s time to dump all of them! And it is past time for the Arizona Legislature to go home for the year before we get even crazier notions pushed into laws. Sine die.

  4. Steve Calabrese says

    Horrible legislation. Weakening rules of service solely for photo radar sets a bad precedent and induces disrespect for the law.

    The role of process server is that of a disinterested third-party; a process server’s first duty is to the court, and then to both parties equally. Their job is to provide a third-party statement of fact: that the person was served, therefore under reasonable circumstances they are aware of the pending action against them.

    There are many safeguards built into the Rules of Civil Procedure designed to make it unlikely that a person can be found in default when they are actually unaware of the action.

    This law seems to be a blatant statement: the law doesn’t matter, due process doesn’t matter, pay your fine whether you know about it or not! We’re the State and we need money!

  5. Again, I have to scrath my head.

    First off, I didn’t vote for this bill and neither did Senator Sylvia Allen. Yet you saw fit to claim we did in your somewhat innacurate story.

    I didn’t sponsor it either, so I have to ask (while scratching my head), what was the purpose of mentioning my name in this story?

    Regards,

    Frank Antenori
    State Senator, LD30

  6. Oberserve says

    http://www.azleg.gov/DocumentsForBill.asp?Bill_Number=SB1018

    Looking at azleg.gov, I can’t verify the author’s claim re your vote. You didn’t co-sponsor, but Sylvia Allen did.

    Do you guys read the bills?!?!?!?!

  7. Oberserve says

    Perhaps the author is referring to this?

    http://sonoranalliance.com/2010/02/16/republican-state-senator-linda-gray-ld10-defies-will-of-azgop/

    What in the world, Rep Antenori, motivated you to sponsor THAT gem?

    Sheesh!

  8. Oberserve says

    Sorry, you were co-sponsor, not sponsor of that one.

    http://www.azleg.gov/DocumentsForBill.asp?Bill_Number=sb1443

  9. You got to be kidding says

    The photo enforcement facts are: Since photo enforcement started average speed down 9 mph, loss of life from accidents down 47%, major accidents down over 8,000, man hours saved for DPS do to accidents over 11,000; public approval 71% and you want to do what?

  10. On January 31, 2008, the city council authorized Australian company, Redflex, to issue automated traffic violations
    at four city intersections. Before and after comparison of two year’s worth of accident data from July 2007 to
    June 2008 compared to July 2008 to June 2009:
    At 91st Avenue and Bell road, accidents increased 100 percent, including a 120 percent jump in rear end and
    “stopped for red light” collisions, in the year after red light cameras were installed.
    At 75th Avenue and Thunderbird Road, accidents increased 480 percent. The number of right-angle and head-on
    collisions increased from 4 to 20, while rear-end collisions also jumped 400 percent.
    At 83rd Avenue and Union Hills, where only left turns are monitored by cameras, accidents increased just 11 percent.
    At 83rd Avenue and Thunderbird Road, accidents increased 29 percent; including a 300 percent jump in rear-ends
    collisions.
    Taken together, accidents increased a total of 103 percent at all four intersections. The city council was made
    aware of the increase in accidents by the police department at six months and a year after the program began,
    but continued the program anyways. http://thenewspaper.com/news/28/2887.asp
    During the 2007 fiscal year, from July 1 to June 30, there were 36 collisions at the intersections. In fiscal 2008,
    there were 73.
    http://www.azcentral.com/community/peoria/articles/2009/08/31/20090831gl-peoredlight0831-ON.html

  11. JustAnotherAzPC says

    C’mon You got to be kidding, haven’t you left out a stat or two?

    Arizona, Tucson & Pima County started their photo traffic enforcement programs after the recession hit.

    Miles driven are way, way down! Could that be part of the reason accidents are down?

    At two intersections in Tucson, accidents went up after the cameras were installed.

    As for speeds being down 9mph, I can understand that one. People know the camera is coming up, they slow way, way down and as soon as they pass the camera zone, they hit the gas.

  12. nightcrawler says

    Well,

    As is mentioned often by the sponsors. We are a nation of laws. Which ones do we choose to enforce ? I guess to some it depends on the issue.

    Despite the cherry-picking of high risk intersection stats, which by the way may not be related to cameras at all.

    Photo radar does make us safer, if for no other reason than to get people to think about their speed.

    I support Senator Pearce on this issue. The law is the law.

  13. Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

  14. nightcrawler says

    Would that be the liberty to speed ? Run red lights ? How about drive drunk ?

    In a civilized society there are rules.

    This is so simple to cure, drive the speed limit and be careful in and around intersections. Is that so difficult ?

    Honestly..

  15. Oberserve says

    Personally, I agree with the argument about obeying the speed limit.

    However, the cameras don’t make just photos. They are 24×7 surveillance cameras.

    Furthermore, you’ve got a foreign corporation surveilling Arizonans movements 24×7 streaming the video data via internet cable through China to Australia.

    Call me crazy? I’ll call you a communist. I’ll mean it and I’ll be right.

  16. The photo radar system is irritating enough, but it’s very hard to believe there are no American manufacturers of photo radar equipment.

  17. WOW. Folks must read the bill. It does NOT extend the life, it does “not” promote or provide for photo radar to continue at all. I complete oppose photo radar. Folks you must read the bills, that is clear in the bill. It simply allows the JP courts to count the workload it causes. We just passed out of Finance a bill to repeal photo radar entirely and I as usual was a strong yes vote. It also puts in some language to protect the public.

    People must take time to read a bill and if they don’t understand it they need to get clarification before reporting false info or simply ask me.

    This bill also requires signs and other notices so one cannot be caught in a speed trap so to speak. It helps protect the public.

    ARIZONA STATE SENATE

    AMENDED

    FACT SHEET FOR S.B. 1018

    photo enforcement procedures; justice courts

    Purpose

    Prescribes additional requirements for the state photo enforcement system, requires a photo enforcement complaint to be served before being filed in court and modifies judicial productivity credit calculations related to photo enforcement citations. Allows county boards of supervisors to establish processing fees and requires a portion of Photo Enforcement Fund monies, up to $4 million, to be deposited in the Public Safety Equipment Fund in FY 2011.

    Background

    Laws 2008, Chapter 286 established a statewide photo enforcement program to be managed by the Department of Public Safety (DPS). The law required DPS to enter into a contract with a private vendor to establish a “state photo enforcement system.” The cameras are placed throughout the state at locations determined by the Director of DPS to detect speed limit violations. Currently, DPS has deployed 40 mobile speed enforcement vehicles to be used on highways throughout Arizona. Additionally, DPS has 36 fixed photo enforcement camera locations. According to DPS, if a notice of violation is not paid, DPS files a complaint into the justice court within 60 days of the alleged violation. If the defendant does not respond to the court, DPS forwards the information to process service, which has 60 days to serve the defendant. If the defendant is not served, the case is dismissed.

    Pursuant to A.R.S. § 22-125, the annual salary of each justice of the peace (JP) is based on the total judicial productivity credits earned by each justice court, and is compiled by the Arizona Supreme Court. The judicial productivity credits are calculated based on specific court caseloads. For example, if a particular court has earned 500 judicial productivity credits, the JP of that court will earn 70 percent of a superior court judge’s salary, or $101,500 (70 percent of $145,000). The salaries of JPs range from $36,250 to $101,500, or 25 to 70 percent of a Superior Court judge’s salary. State photo enforcement citations have never been included in judicial productivity credit calculations.

    There may be a fiscal impact associated with this legislation. After payment of expenses, the Photo Enforcement Fund may retain $250,000 as a balance at the end of each calendar quarter. All fund balances above that amount are transferred to the General Fund. S.B. 1018 requires 40 percent of the monies remaining in the Photo Enforcement Fund after paying all expenses and court costs, not to exceed $4 million, to be deposited in the Public Safety Equipment Fund in FY 2010. These monies would otherwise be transferred to the state General Fund. According to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, in FY 2009, approximately $23.4 million in total revenue from photo enforcement was collected, of which about $4.9 million was distributed to the General Fund during the fiscal year. Additionally, there may be an increase in JPs’ salaries.

    Provisions

    1. Prohibits photo enforcement systems from being placed on a street or highway within 600 feet of a posted speed limit change, except in a school crossing zone delineated by signs.

    2. Requires a speed limit sign to be placed between the two photo enforcement notification signs in each photo enforcement zone.

    3. Prohibits a complaint from being filed in court before the person is served with the complaint.

    4. Extends the time limit for filing a civil traffic violation case that is detected by the state photo enforcement system, from 60 to 90 days after the violation.

    5. Allows a county board of supervisors to establish a processing fee to cover the cost of processing a photo enforcement complaint.

    6. Repeals, retroactive to July 1, 2009, the prohibition of photo enforcement citations from being included in judicial productivity credit calculations for FY 2010.

    7. Requires, retroactive to July 1, 2009 and until the general effective date, state photo enforcement citations to only be included in judicial productivity credit calculations if the person contests responsibility.

    8. Requires, in FY 2011, 40 percent of the monies remaining in the Photo Enforcement Fund after paying all expenses and court costs, not to exceed $4 million, to be deposited in the Public Safety Equipment Fund.

    9. Makes technical and conforming changes.

    10. Becomes effective on the general effective date, with retroactive provisions as noted.

    Amendments Adopted by Committee

    1. Alters placement of speed limit signs.

    2. Permits county boards of supervisors, instead of courts, to establish processing fees.

    3. Modifies the cases in which citations will be included in judicial productivity credit calculations.

    Prepared by Senate Research

    January 22, 2010

    AO/ly

  18. Austrailian Redflex helped you write the bill.

    they said it during the hearing

  19. “I complete oppose photo radar. Folks you must read the bills, that is clear in the bill. It simply allows the JP courts to count the workload it causes. We just passed out of Finance a bill to repeal photo radar entirely and I as usual was a strong yes vote.”

    LOL! This is classic political BULL$H*T!

    With one hand he passes a bill to “repeal photo radar entirely”. But then with his other hand, he sponsors another bill that just gives us “photo radar lite”. He knows the repeal bill won’t pass; he is just using it as political cover so he can say that he is “completely opposed” to photo radar.

    Someone who “completely opposes” photo radar would be working 110% to get rid of it. They wouldn’t be trying to make it easier to enforce unconstitutional tickets, send police to people’s homes, collect money for the courts, etc.

    This is the type of stuff that makes people completely cynical about politicians!

  20. “In a civilized society there are rules.”

    Yeah, but in a civilized society, the government has to follow the rules too.

  21. Wow, thank you SonoranAlliance. I like how these crooks just write in expo-facto law to legislate themselves from lawsuits and any criminal prosecution and IS NOT LEGAL PER THE CONSTITUTION. These people are nothing more than legislative terrorists.

  22. I’ve taken Mr. Pearce’s advice to read the bill and I find his proposal reprehensible. This bill removes money from the General Fund, gives out raises, and spends money on signs.

    Just who does the bill protect? Mr. Pearce’s bill gives J.P.s, such as Justice of the Peace Lester Pearce, an incentive to ramrod these cases through the courts. It also obviously benefits Redflex.

    I am unable to see how this measure protects the public, at all.

  23. nightcrawler says

    Why is it that the Paulies complain about cameras while filming others without their permission ? ( Just Google 4409) Pot calling the kettle black ? Time for the Santa suits and cardboard signs ?

    The bill is simply attempting to properly fund the judicial system given the increased workload that the cameras demand.

    In a state looking for revenue, these cameras are going nowhere. I’d rather have the law breakers pony up than pay more taxes.

  24. Oberserve says

    For the record, despite Sen Pearce’s protestations to the contrary, if you read the final bill with all the amendments, it does contain PRECISELY what MadArizonan states it does.

  25. People must take time to read a bill and if they don’t understand it they need to get clarification before reporting false info.

    This bill also requires signs and other notices so one can not be caught in a speed trap so to speak, simply to protect the public and put in safeguards for them.

    ARIZONA STATE SENATE

    AMENDED

    FACT SHEET FOR S.B. 1018

    photo enforcement procedures; justice courts

    Purpose

    Prescribes additional requirements for the state photo enforcement system, requires a photo enforcement complaint to be served before being filed in court and modifies judicial productivity credit calculations related to photo enforcement citations. Allows county boards of supervisors to establish processing fees and requires a portion of Photo Enforcement Fund monies, up to $4 million, to be deposited in the Public Safety Equipment Fund in FY 2011.

    Background

    Laws 2008, Chapter 286 established a statewide photo enforcement program to be managed by the Department of Public Safety (DPS). The law required DPS to enter into a contract with a private vendor to establish a “state photo enforcement system.” The cameras are placed throughout the state at locations determined by the Director of DPS to detect speed limit violations. Currently, DPS has deployed 40 mobile speed enforcement vehicles to be used on highways throughout Arizona. Additionally, DPS has 36 fixed photo enforcement camera locations. According to DPS, if a notice of violation is not paid, DPS files a complaint into the justice court within 60 days of the alleged violation. If the defendant does not respond to the court, DPS forwards the information to process service, which has 60 days to serve the defendant. If the defendant is not served, the case is dismissed.

    Pursuant to A.R.S. § 22-125, the annual salary of each justice of the peace (JP) is based on the total judicial productivity credits earned by each justice court, and is compiled by the Arizona Supreme Court. The judicial productivity credits are calculated based on specific court caseloads. For example, if a particular court has earned 500 judicial productivity credits, the JP of that court will earn 70 percent of a superior court judge’s salary, or $101,500 (70 percent of $145,000). The salaries of JPs range from $36,250 to $101,500, or 25 to 70 percent of a Superior Court judge’s salary. State photo enforcement citations have never been included in judicial productivity credit calculations.

    There may be a fiscal impact associated with this legislation. After payment of expenses, the Photo Enforcement Fund may retain $250,000 as a balance at the end of each calendar quarter. All fund balances above that amount are transferred to the General Fund. S.B. 1018 requires 40 percent of the monies remaining in the Photo Enforcement Fund after paying all expenses and court costs, not to exceed $4 million, to be deposited in the Public Safety Equipment Fund in FY 2010. These monies would otherwise be transferred to the state General Fund. According to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, in FY 2009, approximately $23.4 million in total revenue from photo enforcement was collected, of which about $4.9 million was distributed to the General Fund during the fiscal year. Additionally, there may be an increase in JPs’ salaries.

    Provisions

    1. Prohibits photo enforcement systems from being placed on a street or highway within 600 feet of a posted speed limit change, except in a school crossing zone delineated by signs.

    2. Requires a speed limit sign to be placed between the two photo enforcement notification signs in each photo enforcement zone.

    3. Prohibits a complaint from being filed in court before the person is served with the complaint.

    4. Extends the time limit for filing a civil traffic violation case that is detected by the state photo enforcement system, from 60 to 90 days after the violation.

    5. Allows a county board of supervisors to establish a processing fee to cover the cost of processing a photo enforcement complaint.

    6. Repeals, retroactive to July 1, 2009, the prohibition of photo enforcement citations from being included in judicial productivity credit calculations for FY 2010.

    7. Requires, retroactive to July 1, 2009 and until the general effective date, state photo enforcement citations to only be included in judicial productivity credit calculations if the person contests responsibility.

    8. Requires, in FY 2011, 40 percent of the monies remaining in the Photo Enforcement Fund after paying all expenses and court costs, not to exceed $4 million, to be deposited in the Public Safety Equipment Fund.

    9. Makes technical and conforming changes.

    10. Becomes effective on the general effective date, with retroactive provisions as noted.

    Amendments Adopted by Committee

    1. Alters placement of speed limit signs.

    2. Permits county boards of supervisors, instead of courts, to establish processing fees.

    3. Modifies the cases in which citations will be included in judicial productivity credit calculations.

    Prepared by Senate Research

    January 22, 2010

    AO/ly

  26. Oberserve says

    Mole, what you posted isn’t actually the bill. It’s a summary sheet.

  27. sorry, wrong bill. I’ll email DSW to see if I can get it deleted

  28. Conservative Educator says

    Pearce’s bill is a continued insult to the people of Arizona with photo radar.

    It’s obvious that costs will go up when counties increase fees. It’s obvious that costs will go up when off-duty police are used to serve summons. It’s obvious that this bill serves Redflex and the justices of the peace.

    The people of Arizona don’t matter. That’s the base behind this bill from Russell Pearce.

  29. I’m on it.

  30. Veritas Vincit says

    Frank Antenori, still out there lurking and listening? You speak of freedom and my retort to you is your co-sponsorship of SB1444. Is Big Brother 24/7/365 monitoring you freedom? Your bill is a much more egregious affront to the motorists of Arizona than SB1018.

    I quote from the Antenori bill:

    “Expands photo enforcement to include identifying violations related to:
    a) certificates of title and registration and
    b) vehicle insurance and financial responsibility.

    Stipulates that MVD is not restricted from refusing to renew a vehicle’s registration if the owner is delinquent in paying a fine for a traffic violation or fails to appear in a criminal traffic case.

    Allows a duly authorized agent or someone paid to act on behalf of a traffic enforcement agency to testify on behalf of the traffic enforcement agency at traffic hearings.

    9. Specifies that a notice of violation and uniform traffic ticket and complaint resulting from a photo enforcement system are not required to be mailed with prepaid postage to the person charged with the violation.

    10. Removes the requirement that the photo enforcement system must record images of a vehicle’s license plate.

    13. Allows county boards of supervisors to establish a processing fee to cover the cost of processing a photo enforcement complaint. Prohibits the fee from being subject to any surcharge.”

  31. Hi, I am Peter from England. I use a license plate spray called photoblocker, and it works for me, what is your opinion?

  32. Ponder This says

    Wow I am amazed at the blatant BS from our state government. Photo Radar, Immigration SB (The Democrats immediately proposed a national biometric ID), more police state, no real cut in spending, a governor that will now be re-elected because she talks the talk and our borders are not only not protected, we are losing real ground to the cartels.

Trackbacks

  1. […] in early April, the Sonoran Alliance published an article rightly criticle of Pearce, entitled  SB1018: The Photo Radar Resurrection Act . They aptly pointed out “So here we have the “Liberty Caucus”, Senator Pearce, and […]

  2. […] in early April, the Sonoran Alliance published an article rightly critical of Pearce, entitled  SB1018: The Photo Radar Resurrection Act . They aptly pointed out “So here we have the “Liberty Caucus”, Senator Pearce, and […]

Leave a Reply to Oberserve Cancel reply