NOT BACKING DOWN: Crump Calls System Illegal


Rep Sam Crump (R-Anthem) and Rep Andy Biggs (right) (R-Gilbert) are opposed to automated ticketing.

State Representative Sam Crump (R- Anthem) appears not be backing down from the fight against automated ticketing in Arizona. The author of a bill pending before the legislature to prohibit photo radar or so-called photo enforcement zones from state-maintained highways and routes, Crump has upped the ante, stating that there are numerous reasons he believes the system is illegal:

Crump said he believes the system is illegal for several reasons. And he said he would prefer if it went away immediately… Aside from the inability of those photographed to confront their accuser, Crump said the system violates a state law which requires that anyone other than a law enforcement officer who gathers evidence for use in court must be a licensed private investigator. He said Redflex employees have no such licenses.

While Crump’s bill is an excellent start, it will not have the same dramatic effect as the pending citizen’s ballot effort.  That effort, supported by CameraFRAUD, would ban all forms of automated ticketing within the state (including dangerous red light cameras). Over 153,000 valid signatures are required to be gathered and submitted to the State of Arizona by mid 2010 before the measure would reach a public vote. Unlike the whims of the state legislature, a citizen’s ballot measure–if passed– would be extremely difficult to overturn.

Automated ticketing has never survived a public vote.

Call Sam Crump and thank him for his dedication to fight automated ticketing: (602) 926-3014.

27 Responses to NOT BACKING DOWN: Crump Calls System Illegal

  1. BJ says:

    Keep it up, Sam!

    Again, while people here are mostly about the ballot proposition, this is the first major public battle over photo radar and it is pivotal.

    For World War II historians out there, this is like the Battle of Midway in June 1942. If Redflex (Japan) wins and the bill fails, the war is all but over. The public will slide further down the road towards giving up and looking for compromises/tweaks to the system, and those still wanting a complete eradication will slide into the minority. However, if HB2106 (USA) passes, it will stop Redflex/ATS in their tracks, and the real battle will go on into next November.

    BTW – anyone notice that there’s not a peep of this side of the story on All we have is EJ Montini op/ed piece (where he rips Sam), and the 109 MPH madman story…

    • Fox news mentioned Crumps comment about it being illegal as a minor side note, which I think is incredible because how isn’t that a newsworthy claim (worthy of at least a follow-up question and investigation)from lawyer and state rep?

      BTW, there is legal precedence for this but I need help locating the case if anyone can help me find it. It is a 1992 Arizona Apellate court decision. In that time frame, I’m guessing one of the parties is Mesa, Peoria, or Paradise Valley.

      About two weeks ago, Crump told me that he plans to call a special hearing of the Government Committee on this issue in a couple of weeks.

      • David says:

        There is indeed a very strong apellate case as I mentioned on the message board this morning, However I would prefer not to mention it because it would not be wise to “show our hand”. Furthemore, there are several other Arizona laws that are being violated every day by redflex and ATS. I know persoally that Mr. Crump is aware of both the case law and statutes. However, I will refrane from showing our hand just as, if you havn’t noticed, ha Mr.Crump in his varios media appearances. TRUST ME. It goes way deeper than just the PI statute. And the slam dunk is that the illegal activity is required of redflex and ats in their respective contracts! The actually contracted with the state to perform illegal activity.

        Enough said. Victory is at our doorstep.

  2. RPr says:

    has crump signed the petition yet?

  3. Doc says:

    I called Congressman Crump’s office just now. The phone was answered by Louisanne (I hope I spelled that right…) I told her that I really appreciated his efforts, and him not cowin down to those BASTARDS! She said that she’d pass that along, & that I had said what she had wanted to say for months! So, there’s a little slice of my .02 cents worth.

    Heres to 86’ing th’ scameras, & to our success!!!
    Doc from Prescott

  4. Will Kay says:

    Way to go Congressman Crump! Tell it like it is! These systems are unconstitutional and ILLEGAL! I didn’t know there was “a state law which requires that anyone other than a law enforcement officer who gathers evidence for use in court must be a licensed private investigator.” I’ll definitely have to spread the word about that.

    • RPr says:

      A.R.S. 32-2401
      “Private investigator” means a person other than an insurance adjuster or an on-duty peace officer as defined in section 1-215 who, for any consideration, engages in business or accepts employment to:
      (a) Furnish, agree to make or make any investigation for the purpose of obtaining information with reference to:
      (i) Crime or wrongs done or threatened against the United States or any state or territory of the United States.
      (ii) The identity, habits, conduct, movements, whereabouts, affiliations, associations, transactions, reputation or character of any person or group of persons.
      (iii) The credibility of witnesses or other persons.
      (iv) The whereabouts of missing persons, owners of abandoned property or escheated property or heirs to estates.
      (v) The location or recovery of lost or stolen property.
      (vi) The causes and origin of, or responsibility for, a fire, libel, slander, a loss, an accident, damage or an injury to real or personal property.
      (b) Secure evidence to be used before investigating committees or boards of award or arbitration or in the trial of civil or criminal cases and the preparation therefor.
      (c) Investigate threats of violence and provide the service of protection of individuals from serious bodily harm or death.

    • There’s a full write-up on the laws and my investigation at if anyone is interested, including a response from DPS.

      I encourage everyone to submit a formal complaint to the state PI licensing dept at

      When submitting your complaint, try to focus on the Redflex contracts that are not with the state/DPS. Specifically reference city of Scottsdale or other cities. That way they cannot use their bogus ARS 41-1722 defense.

      • Will Kay says:

        Thank you much PRS, I am definitely going to use this against the City of Scottsdale. Althought my case was ultimately dismissed, everything they did was unlawful, including defaulting me.

      • Doc says:

        PRS-When we are celebrating our victory, & there’s DPS sh!theads & judges, of whom a great many have been made to LOOK criminal by th’ actions of th’ criminal few, are residing with their co-conspirators in ‘tent city’…I seriously want to buy you a Maker’s Mark on th’ rox. I’ve been burned too many times to celebrate victory before we actually HAVE it, but I’ve got a really good feelin’ about this!

        Lookin’ Forward to a Drink…Doc from Prescott

  5. Louisiana says:

    We had the same complaint in Louisiana and the PI Board agreed. Redflex sued and got a judge to block the PI board from enforcing the requirement……Just so you know, Redlfex will spend a lot of money fighting you on this.

    In Louisiana in order to hire PI’s you must be an agency In order qualify for an agency, you must have worked as a PI for five years. Redflex knew they would not be able to qualify as an agency, because thy haven’t been in the state for five years. So they spent lots of money getting the judge to block the Board from enforcing the law against them.

    Good luck, it’s a worthy side issue.

    • Will Kay says:

      Which to me means they have judges bankrolled.

      • Mark S says:

        One of these days it will all come out int he wash and a lot of individuals will be going to jail.

        • Will Kay says:

          I say indict Napolitano.

        • Doc says:

          Will Kay & ALL- I sent an e-mail to Sen Steve Pierce, Rep. Andy Tobin, & Rep Lucy Mason, stating that very sentiment. Mizz Napalitano needs to be charged, PRONTO!

          Remembering when Az was the FREE-EST state in th’ United States! Now, not so much…Doc from Prescott

  6. I wondered when someone would push the point about collection of evidence. Thank you for sharing.

  7. Marbro says:

    Way to go Crump.
    These cameras are so Illegal. It’s totally obvious.
    Our state is marching down a dangerous path.

  8. […] BACKING DOWN: Crump Calls System Illegal Camera Fraud Article: NOT BACKING DOWN: Crump Calls System IllegalRep Sam Crump (R-Anthem) and Rep Andy Biggs (right) (R-Gilbert) are opposed to automated […]

  9. Doc says:

    Talk about illegal…That THIEVERY goin’ on at River & Oracle in Tucson…Yous should read that whole deal on th’ Tucson site. OMG, talk about Judges, Cops, Scamera Corps, & RACKETEERING!!! Maybe th’ feds need to put down their ‘Outlaw Motorcycle Gang’ HARRASSMENT, & Check into th’ strong arm robbery of th’ citizens of Tucson by th’ Constabulary!

    Rememberin’ F R E E D O M ! ! !-Doc from Prescott

  10. geotucson says:

    ***** ALERT *****

    • geez says:

      Do you understand how milemarkers work?
      You do know that 0-1 would be 0, and 1-2 is still 1?
      And that they go up or down depending on what direction your going, not just always up?
      If you were going south on 17, passed the 211 sign, you would be in 210. If you were going north on 17, and passed the 212 sign, you would still be in 212.
      Lets see the video.

  11. BJ says:

    Bad news on the legal front today when it comes to the 4th amendment and electronic surveillance-gathering (in this case a GPS device)…

    “The court disagreed. The tracking did not violate constitutional protections because the device only gave police information that could have been obtained through visual surveillance, Lundsten wrote.”

    “”We discern no privacy interest protected by the Fourth Amendment that is invaded when police attach a device to the outside of a vehicle, as long as the information obtained is the same as could be gained by the use of other techniques that do not require a warrant,” he wrote.”

    See the story at,0,5890193.story

    If this legal logic is upheld, there will be similar arguments made for photo radar – another form of non-warranted, non-manned law enforcement – and “tracking criminal behavior”.

    Remember this is a Court of Appeals – one step below the Supreme Court – so this decision carries a lot of legal weight.

    In a way, this is a death knell for any anti-Constitutional arguments against photo radar…

    Listen to the fearmongering rationale at the end of the article:

    “A state law already requires the Department of Corrections to track the state’s most dangerous sex offenders using GPS. The author of that law, Rep. Scott Suder, R-Abbotsford, said the decision shows “GPS tracking is an effective means of protecting public safety.””

    We’re screwed… 😦

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: