The Legality of Speed Cameras in Arizona

The Function of Speed Cameras in Arizona

Part of the misconception about the speed cameras stems from what they actually are. The most common type of speed camera is the photo radar: a small radar unit that monitors the speed of vehicles traveling along the street. If a vehicle exceeds a preset speed while passing the camera, an infrared flash and the camera take a photograph of the rear of the vehicle, which is followed by a timestamp and the location of the violation. The photograph is then printed on a citation and sent to the vehicle’s owner.
There are two versions of the photo radar camera: stationary and mobile, or moveable. A stationary camera sits on a pole at a fixed location along a roadway or intersection . A mobile camera is set up on a trailer or in a van, often situated on the side of the road or at a light. Both stationary and mobile cameras may be speed activated or monitored by an operator at a distance away from the camera.
The first speed camera in Arizona was installed in Scottsdale in 1996 to monitor red-light runners at red lights. According to a report by the FT(HR) report, the city’s red-light collisions declined by 32.5 percent between 1996 and 1998. Scottsdale has operated a total of seven automated cameras: three have been retired and four remain operational. The system has collected over $10 million in fines.

Whether Speed Cameras are Legal

To understand why there are so many speed cameras in Phoenix, you must first understand the legal status of speed cameras. In Arizona, unlike many states, the law permits the use of photo enforcement. Local governments have embraced the technology and integrated it into the law enforcement tool box. Under A.R.S. § 28-1581(d), automated enforcement is permitted in this state providing it conforms to the state statute. That statute dictates how the cameras work and the limits on their use. It requires that each county approve any installation in that county by ordinance or resolution because municipalities cannot individually choose whether or not they deploy speed cameras. This state law was passed in 2000 and signed by Governor Hull.
In 2010, a lawsuit was filed in the Fann County Superior Court (Sunnyslope Neighborhood Association v. State of Arizona) challenging whether the state’s camera law complied with the restrictions on the Legislature’s ability to create new crimes under the state constitution. The plaintiffs in this case asserted that speed camera tickets were criminal citations and covered by A.R.S. §13-802, which prohibits the Legislature from creating new crimes at the end of a session unless it re-enacts the new crime at the start of the following session. This case, however, did not challenge the local ordinances approving the locations of speed cameras or the way that speed cameras are used, but rather the creation of the criminal violation itself.
The Sunnyslope case was appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, which overturned the trial court’s decision on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the case to that court. In a case called Angel De Paola v. City of Phoenix, filed in 2010 in Phoenix Municipal Court, the Court ruled that the speed camera ordinance in Phoenix violated the A.R.S. § 28-1581(a)(4) because speed cameras are not manned by an officer as required by that statute. But the City appealed this case to the Court of Appeals, walking away from that ruling and the statutory requirement that the motorist be cited by an "officer." The City argued that it is not the job of the police to enforce the speed laws and that the fact that the cameras are not manned does not violate city ordinances or the state statutes enacted in 2000.
Although some of the judges indicated that they were uncomfortable with the speed cameras, they ruled to uphold their use because prior court rulings prohibited the Court of Appeals from deciding cases based on morality. These judges also noted that the Supreme Court would soon issue a ruling that would probably permit speed cameras. They were correct, in that the Arizona Supreme Court issued a decision over the summer ruling that speed camera tickets are civil violations.

Arguments For and Against Speed Cameras

There are a number of arguments for the use of speed cameras. They are purported to decrease speeding and increase road safety near school zones and construction zones, for example. Advocates assign less of a societal cost to automated ticket writing versus a police officer writing a ticket and then having to spend time in court should the ticket be contested. Furthermore, speed cameras eliminate issues such as racial profiling and widely accept that discretion from the ticketing officer can often lead to discriminatory practices. On the other hand, critics of speed camera programs argue that they are unconstitutional on several fronts: a violation of due process by not guaranteeing a face to face adjudicatory process of an alleged crime; that they violate the right of the accused by not allowing the defendant to cross examine the officer and that they run contrary to the Separation of Powers Clause by essentially allowing the executive branch of government to author the sentence the driver receives for their violation. Opponents of speed cameras have also been known to cite a government report that contradicts the safety benefits of speed cameras and state that automated ticket writing also encourages people to speed through the area that presumably has more at stake, such as a child or construction worker.

Effect of Speed Cameras on Traffic Offenses

The use of speed cameras has changed the landscape of traffic violations and traffic enforcement as we know it. In his 2016 report "Enforcement of Speed Limits in Arizona," David R. Duran took a look at what impact speed cameras had had on traffic violations throughout the state. He found that research shows traffic violations decreased significantly with the implementation of these cameras. However, there is also a spike in violations immediately after the removal of these cameras, leading to the logic that the cameras were doing exactly what they were supposed to do: slowing people down in certain areas.
Having accurate data is vital to the conclusion that traffic jurisdictions arrive at, and that data is what Duran used to complete his research. He assessed the citation counts for both red light cameras and photo enforcement cameras in each of the 15 jurisdictions that he examined, comparing them to counts from 30 months before each camera was installed and 30 months after . He concluded that, on average, "jurisdictions experienced a 30% reduction in violations for those intersections that employed red light cameras but the reductions were short lived." He also found that photo enforcement cameras produced "immediate and significant short-term reductions in violations" and "long-term reductions in violations were demonstrated for three of the five jurisdictions for which this analysis could be performed." He went on to say that if all jurisdictions were to implement cameras, the state would very likely have reduced triple the number of traffic violations. However, he cautioned that these results vary depending on the jurisdictions, the level of enforcement, the number of offenses giving rise to citations, and the amount of time before and after the data is collected.
Unfortunately, courts have found loopholes that have left some questions about the legality of speed cameras in Arizona. To avoid these loopholes, it is imperative that you are represented by an attorney who has a thorough understanding of the law and can properly challenge the photo tickets issued against you.

Response to and Impact of Speed Cameras

Public perception of speed cameras in Arizona reveals a contentious subject for the government and citizens. While officials will tell you the cameras are there to protect the general public, there is a greater sense that they exist to generate new revenue for already cash-strapped municipalities. Residents who have been caught in the crosshairs of these systems would like to believe that they have all but eliminated speeding in their neighborhoods, or even that they will retain the ability to run radar speeds on their friends, neighbors and families to prove a point. Unfortunately, experience shows this is not the case.
There have been a number of surveys conducted to get a better idea of how the adult population feels about their speed enforcers, and a lot of them paint the same picture overall. The 2011 National Survey of Speeding Attitudes was commissioned by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, and it’s results were revealing. The survey found that:
Fully one-third of speeding vehicles (33.7 percent) were going at least 10 miles per hour faster than the posted speed limit. Despite the fact that only 7.9 percent of respondents supported the speed limit laws for urban freeways, the vast majority believed that a captured driver should pay the penalty regardless of whether or not they disagree with the law.
If the majority of people agree that speed restrictions are a good idea, that the rules should apply to all drivers and that violations should be punished, why the pushback on devices intended to do just that?
In 2010, Phoenix residents successfully shut down the PRECO SafeSpeed Program when they questioned the expedited form of due process the system operated under, namely that fines were levied before any criminal offenses were adjudicated. Subsequent adjustments made to PRECO altered the way in which the cameras were allowed to operate, but did little to quell the backlash. In 2011, Governor Jan Brewer signed a bill outlawing the use of the devices in Arizona, which has made it somewhat less contentious, but has not completely stopped public initiatives.
Arizona Public Media reported in August 2013 that speed limits near the site of a recent accident outbreak were raised to help prevent such tragedies from happening. This may be one of the few times drivers actually welcomed the actions of local officials, but further action could jeopardize their safety. In June 2014, the SURGE Initiative reported that a petition had gained more than 500 votes from residents in north Scottsdale demanding an end to automated enforcement in their community. Again, the city has deferred to the opinion of its citizens, but the issue is far from resolved.
Clearly, residents appreciate the idea and implementation of safe practices on major thoroughfares, especially those designed to curb speeding. However, the means by which this is implemented is where the public and their elected officials typically part ways.

The Future of Camera-Based Traffic Laws in Arizona

As technology continues to advance, it is possible that automated enforcement will become even more prevalent in Arizona. This could take the form of additional cameras for speeding, red-light violations, or even new types of violations. New technologies may also enhance the ability of law enforcement agencies to issue citations remotely, even in areas where traditional cameras are not currently deployed. However, it is unclear whether there will be further legislative action on this issue in Arizona. A repeal of automated enforcement in the state would presumably require action by the Arizona Legislature. While some Arizona lawmakers have long opposed more widespread use of speed and red-light cameras , it is uncertain whether such an effort is likely to gain traction in the near future, especially by a legislature that is divided between a Democratic governor and a Republican-controlled legislature. This does not mean that there will be no future developments in Arizona, however. For example, a lawsuit filed in November 2020, seeks to stop the use of automated speed cameras in the city of Phoenix. That suit, which was filed by Arizona House Majority Leader Warren Petersen (R-AZ), alleges that the city’s current speed camera program violates Arizona law because it does not have the approval or authorization of the State Director of Transportation. Whatever the future holds for automated traffic enforcement in Arizona, it is a topic to watch closely over the next few years.