CtznSelfDefense
Junior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Arizona
On July 1, 2008 A.R.S. 41-1722 became an effective law. The law provides that the Arizona Department of Public Safety establish a statewide system of photo radar enforcement on all highways. "System" connotes a uniform operation.
Prior to July 1, 2008, the Arizona Departments of Transportation and Public Safety had ceded at least two (2) portions of two (2) different Arizona state highways to two (2) local jurisdictions to operate their own photo radar enforcement equipment.
When A.R.S. 41-1722 was enacted, no exemptions, no exceptions were carved out by The State Legislature. When A.R.S. 41-1722 came into effect, did the pre-July 1, 2008 intergovernmental agreements, permits, and Letters of Authorization to the local jurisdictions authorizing them to enforce the laws using photo radar equipment become null and void, having been repealed or superseded by the new statute?
To put a point to the inquiry, the alleged purpose of A.R.S. 41-1722 was to provide a revenue-raising source for the cash-strapped state. Under the previous arrangements (prior to the effective date of the new law), the local authorities collected and distributed the monies obtained from the sanctions. Under A.R.S. 41-1722, sanction monies are to be deposited in a Fund established by the Director of the Arizona State Department of Public Safety and amount over $250,000 are to be sent to the Arizona General Fund on a periodic, quarterly basis.
I received a traffic ticket and citation from an alleged violation detected by a fixed photo radar camera on an Arizona highway on July 30, 2008. The citation originated with the local law enforcement officials, not with a contractor or vendor of the statewide photo radar enforcement system as provided by A.R.S. 41-1722. What is my defense?
HOW ABOUT THE ASSERTION THAT THE STATE LEGISLATURE HAS OCCUPIED THE ENTIRE FIELD, LEAVING NO ROOM FOR LOCAL ACTION UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF IMPLIED PRE-EMPTION? That the State has designed and implemented a scheme to enable the Department of Public Safety to issue citations and collect penalty sanction monies for the benefit of the State General Fund exclusively, indicates legislative intent to install a statewide system thereby negating any and all previous cessions, agreements, permits, and local ordinates relating to the same scope and operations of photo radar enforcement throughout the State?
On July 1, 2008 A.R.S. 41-1722 became an effective law. The law provides that the Arizona Department of Public Safety establish a statewide system of photo radar enforcement on all highways. "System" connotes a uniform operation.
Prior to July 1, 2008, the Arizona Departments of Transportation and Public Safety had ceded at least two (2) portions of two (2) different Arizona state highways to two (2) local jurisdictions to operate their own photo radar enforcement equipment.
When A.R.S. 41-1722 was enacted, no exemptions, no exceptions were carved out by The State Legislature. When A.R.S. 41-1722 came into effect, did the pre-July 1, 2008 intergovernmental agreements, permits, and Letters of Authorization to the local jurisdictions authorizing them to enforce the laws using photo radar equipment become null and void, having been repealed or superseded by the new statute?
To put a point to the inquiry, the alleged purpose of A.R.S. 41-1722 was to provide a revenue-raising source for the cash-strapped state. Under the previous arrangements (prior to the effective date of the new law), the local authorities collected and distributed the monies obtained from the sanctions. Under A.R.S. 41-1722, sanction monies are to be deposited in a Fund established by the Director of the Arizona State Department of Public Safety and amount over $250,000 are to be sent to the Arizona General Fund on a periodic, quarterly basis.
I received a traffic ticket and citation from an alleged violation detected by a fixed photo radar camera on an Arizona highway on July 30, 2008. The citation originated with the local law enforcement officials, not with a contractor or vendor of the statewide photo radar enforcement system as provided by A.R.S. 41-1722. What is my defense?
HOW ABOUT THE ASSERTION THAT THE STATE LEGISLATURE HAS OCCUPIED THE ENTIRE FIELD, LEAVING NO ROOM FOR LOCAL ACTION UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF IMPLIED PRE-EMPTION? That the State has designed and implemented a scheme to enable the Department of Public Safety to issue citations and collect penalty sanction monies for the benefit of the State General Fund exclusively, indicates legislative intent to install a statewide system thereby negating any and all previous cessions, agreements, permits, and local ordinates relating to the same scope and operations of photo radar enforcement throughout the State?
Last edited: