28-672 in the news

Prosecutors routinely decline to prosecute negligent drivers who kill/injure. Nearly without exception, they will only seek homicide (i.e. negligent homicide, or manslaughter) / aggravated assault charges if the driver is impaired. Short of that, the hurdle, in the minds of prosecutors, is very very high.

Arizona has no vehicular homicide law, it does however since 1998 have a law, §28-672, ” Causing serious physical injury or death by a moving violation” (and some companion laws 28-675 and 6 which work in an analogous fashion). The catch is that in order to be charged with 28-672, the driver must have been engaging in one or more of a specific list of infractions. For example, running a red light.

Also note that everything said below applies analogously to drivers who have certain license problems, but with harsher penalties via two other laws, 28-675 and 28-676.

28-672 / HB2327 Hearing Minutes

This is the genesis, from the House Transportation Committee hearing on H.B. 2327, 2/10/1998. It was initially focused on red-light running, and indeed Frank Hinds went on to co-found Red Means Stop Alliance :

Frank Hinds, representing himself, Glendale, shared with the Committee the experience of losing his daughter by the actions of a red-light runner. Mr. Hinds recounted the suffering endured by those who survived the accident and noted that the driver who ran the red light was fined only $105 dollars, because running a red light is not a criminal offense unless drugs or alcohol are involved. Mr. Hinds urged the Committee to pass H.B. 2327 for his daughter, Jennifer, and for other innocent victims.
Representative Voss, shared the experience of a constituent in Mr. Kyle’s district who lost her husband by the actions of a red-light runner, while she herself suffered great bodily damage. Miss Voss noted that 13 percent of all accidents in 1997 were attributable to disregarded traffic signals, running stop signs, and improper turns. Miss Voss urged the Committee to pass H.B. 2327.
Vice Chairman Cooley also shared the loss of his own son due to an automobile accident and asked Miss Voss if the option for civil litigation is not sufficient punishment to a red-light runner. Miss Voss stressed that most forms of civil litigation in cases such as this are against insurance companies and not directed at the perpetrator.
Chairman Overton acknowledged the presence of those who support H.B. 2327 and did not speak:  Terry Sills, President, Phoenix Law Enforcement Association, Eric Edwards, Legislative Liaison, Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police and Phoenix Police Officers, Lorraine Brown, Manager, Policy, Motor Vehicle Division (neutral)
Jerry G. Landau, Special Assistant, Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, explained … punishment would be mandatory, and clarified that it is in the form of a “civil sanction” and not a criminal penalty.

28-672 Legislative History

(longer list below in a comment; i haven’t had time to merge that here) Here’s some legislative history of §28-672, (now) a misdemeanor charge “Causing Death/serious injury by Moving Violation”; it is pretty recent, it’s only been around since 1998, and initially had a short list of enabling violations: red-light running, bad left turn, and running stop signs.  HB2327 43rd Legislature 2nd Regular session; Chapter 243, signed May 1998. The new law was initially a civil (not criminal) violation.

Notably, 28-672 was “criminalized” quite recently (47th 2nd regular session, probably 2006) before that it was a civil-only penalty. HB2208

The enumerated list of enabling statutes is the most subject to augmentation:

In 1998 (initial law): 645A3(a), 772, and 855B .
In 2004, added were: 792, 794, 797E6
In 2006, added were: 857A (HB2389)
In 2007, added were: 857A (HB2052) (identical change by both bills for school busses)
In 2008, change 797 sections (probably for consistency with modifications to 797?)
In 2010, added were: 729, 771, 773

So suggesting changes to this section is not predisposed to failure. I would like to see the enhanced penalties for 28-735 dropped (i.e. eliminate sections B and C entirely) and to have it added to the list of ‘672 violations.

In 2012, added provision to lengthen statute of limitations to 2 years; previously the time limit would have been the default, 1 year, for misdemeanors. (HB2241 50th 2nd Regular; Chaptered Bill)

Current List of Infractions

Here is the current (as of  changes made in 2010) list of enabling infractions:

  • §28-645(A)3(a): Running a red light
  • §28-729: failure to drive in one lane
  • §28-771: failure to yield to vehicle on the right (generally applies to uncontrolled intersections)
  • §28-772: Bad left
  • §28-773: drive out at stop sign (see also, 855B, below).
  • §28-792: Running down a pedestrian in a marked OR UNMARKED crosswalk
  • §28-794: Not exercising due care around a pedestrian
  • §28-797 subsection F, G, H, or I:  Disobeying various school zone rules
  • §28-855(B): Running a stop sign
  • §28-857(A): Disobeying school bus stop signs

Longer Statute of Limitations

28-672 has a 2-year statute of limitations (as of 2012; see subsection H), instead of 1 year for most misdemeanors. The general statute of limitation rules for felonies, misdemeanors and petty offenses are set forth in §13-107; while civil traffic offenses have their own time limits in §28-1592.  So, the time limit for issuing any civil violation in any relevent crash would be either 180 days (if not involving death), or 1 year if a fatality resulted. Charging a 672 beyond that time can still be done, up to 2 years, it will just not include any underlying civil violation.

It would be interesting to know the genesis of why the time limit was extened to 2 years (HB2241 in 2012).

More about 28-672

There is some more discussion of 28-672 at: so-youve-killed-somebody-with-your-car-now-what including the definition of how a “serious physical injury” is defined.

Jurisdiction

It’s worth pointing out that a minor crime like 28-672, unlike, say, any sort of homicide, can be handled by city attorney’s offices and are adjudicated in municipal or justice courts.

Not Jury Eligible

Actually I’m not really sure, but it seems safe to assume a 28-672 charge is not jury eligible. As background: violation of 28-672 is a class 3 misdemeanor, the lowest level misdemeanor, class 1 being the most serious. §13-707 lists the sentencing guidelines; unless some sort of repeat or additional crime is involved, a class 3 will never result in any jail sentence. Some other statute sets forth a monetary maximum fine (and 28-672 can also involve restitution, i.e. monies paid by the criminal to the victim).

 

By contrast Reckless driving, 28-693 a class 2 misdemeanor, is jury eligible Urs v. Maricopa County Attorney’s Office the court held that the charge was a jury-eligible offense at common law (at the time of statehood), and therefore a right to jury was preserved; This is mentioned specifically several times in the more recent Derendal v. Griffith/Phoenix City Court, an Arizona State Supreme Court case regarding street racing. There was an interesting side-note from that case: “… the Arizona legislature abolished all common law crimes more than thirty years ago, see A.R.S. § 13-103.A (1978)”. hmmm, so that’s where that all-criminal-law-in-AZ-is-statutory stuff comes from, I guess.

Anyway, despite street racing 28-708 being the more serious (class 1) misdemeanor; the court held that there was no existing analagous offense at statehood (and thus isn’t guaranteed a jury due to that “prong”) and was not otherwise serious enough to warrant a jury.

The court has also, and consistently held that it “recogniz(es) driving as a privilege rather than a right and holding that the ‘potential loss of the driving privilege [was not] a grave or serious consequence’ ”. In other words, in case anyone was wondering, the possibility of a driver’s license suspension (which is true for all these misdemeanor driving offenses: 28-672, as well as reckless driving, and street racing) is not a back-door way of getting a right to jury trial… Even though a suspension could have obviously severe individual consequences — consider anyone who is employed as a driver — the court held that “we will consider only those consequences that apply uniformly to all persons convicted of a particular offense”

Long and possibly interesting lawerly article by George Anagnost in Arizona Attorney magazine micro-analyzes the “inviolate” right to jury situation.

A couple of media stories:

Irma Quintana Fatality

There’s nothing surprising or novel about this particular case in Laurie Robert’s recent column (if that link doesn’t work, check her blog), except perhaps its flagrance. A habitual speeder is speeding, red-light runner killed somebody. The 25 y.o. male killer (curiously not named, why?) according to the victim’s family’s attorney “says the SUV driver had eight prior speeding tickets and had been cited three times for driving without insurance before the April crash – when he also apparently had no insurance…(and) cited four times for driving with a suspended license”

The class 3 misdemeanor refers to §28-672 which recently changed to allow for criminal charges. Prior to 2007, the law didn’t even allow for any criminal charge, only enhanced civil penalties. (also see §28-675§28-676 which offer enhanced penalties if the injury/death was caused by a driver who is “not allowed to operate a motor vehicle…”, i.e. suspended license).

A class 3 misdemeanor normally implies no jail time whatsoever, and the maximum license suspension for death is 180 days — really, can’t we do any better for the sake of justice and public safety?

I added the photo enforcement tag because the red light camera evidence was instrumental in disproving the driver’s claim that he had a green light.

Jenna Eades Fatality

A few days later, Roberts did the Jenna Eades fatality in her column. (blog link).  As Roberts wrote in summary: “In Maricopa County, you can kill someone with your car and get away with it as long as you aren’t drunk or high. Here, there is no consequence, no price to be paid.”
“Maybe some day, somebody will be able to explain to her [Haley who survived but had serious injuries] how the man who took away her sister hasn’t gotten so much as a traffic ticket.” The official answer as to why there would be no traffic citation is explained here, Double Jeopard and flawed logic.


A mother’s death, a son’s loss deepens

by Laurie Roberts – Jan. 24, 2009 12:00 AM
The Arizona Republic

(excerpts)…
Just after 9 p.m., Ruben was headed west on Broadway when a southbound SUV, having just come off the Hohokam Expressway, ran the red light at 48th Street. The 25-year-old driver told police he had a green light and was going the speed limit. However, witnesses disagreed, as did the red-light camera that snapped him as he blew through the intersection.

According to Tempe police, the light had been red for 7.83 seconds when he came through, doing 48 mph in a 35 mph zone. Put another way, he was 550 feet from the intersection when that light turned red. Police said he had “more than adequate distance” to stop.


No alcohol or drugs were involved.


“He wasn’t impaired,” spokesman Mike Scerbo told me. “He didn’t flee the scene. It was not considered reckless behavior. It’s tragic, but it can’t be qualified as a felony.”

Not reckless, to be going 48 mph in a 35 zone, even though you’ve driven over four “rumble strips” to alert you to slow down? Not reckless, when the light had been red for nearly eight seconds? Count out eight seconds to see just how long that is.


Ruben’s (the victim) attorney, Clifford Heiney, says the SUV driver had eight prior speeding tickets and had been cited three times for driving without insurance before the April crash – when he also apparently had no insurance.

Heiney said he had been cited four times for driving with a suspended license, though police said he had a valid license in April.

Scerbo told me prosecutors have sent the case to the Tempe city attorney, recommending that the driver be charged with a Class 3 misdemeanor for killing Irma Quintana.

A Class 3 misdemeanor.

If convicted, the driver would have to go to traffic school and pay a fine. He even could see his license suspended.


25 thoughts on “28-672 in the news”

  1. There’s a problem with respect to 28-772, a “left hook”, when the victim is a cyclist
    “The driver of a vehicle within an intersection intending to turn to the left shall yield the right-of-way to a VEHICLE”

    The word “vehicle” probably ought to be “traffic” instead. In AZ bikes aren’t vehicles (more explanations here ). This distinction may seem to be hair-splitting, getting away with this nuance, particulary on a criminal charge, is not likely to fly.

    This seeming oversight is on a short list of statute tweaks I would like to see.

    http://www.azleg.gov/ars/28/00772.htm

  2. There was a 28-672 citation for the driver collided with an off-duty tucson PD officer riding a motorcycle. Discussion at tusconbikelawyer.com. news story.
    The time line is pretty quick — the collision occured May 17, and the citation was noted in the newspaper May 28, 2009.

  3. There is some legislative action in spring 2011, HB2523 (50th legislature / first regular session)

    Interesting KGUN article, i had not heard anything about this bill. It was sponsored by Vic Williams (R-Phoenix) and Terri Proud (R-Tucson).
    What it would do is change the particulars as to what type of license suspension would be eligible for the more serious charges. In one version, it would simply be any suspended license.

    I can’t quite figure out from the azleg site where this stands. The legislative session seems to be winding down?? maybe it’s (this bill) already dead.

  4. I’ve always thought there were very few prosecutions under 28-672; after all there are thousands of deaths or serious injuries arising from car wrecks every year in Arizona — if only 10% of them qualified there would be hundreds of proscutions… well it turns out the dearth of cases is more than oversight, in some places it’s actually policy!

    In a horrifying memo uncovered by KGUN, the Tucson city attorney, citing budgetary problems, has directed their police to NOT issue 28-672 charges.
    Apparently negligently caused deaths and horrible injuries aren’t important enough for the prosecutor to bother with…. a traffic ticket will do just fine, thank you.

    The driver accused of running a red light, killing 2 and seriously injuring another, 29 y.o. Richard Kinner (maybe Kinnar?) had a long string of violations: “But a 9 On Your Side Investigation discovered that Kinner has a long history of previous traffic citations — 31 in all, including five charges of street racing and seven other charges of driving on a suspended license.”
    You can see a picture of the pimped-out Tahoe here.

    The county attorney apparently decided the more-serious 28-675/676 cannot be charged; it would depend on why Kinnar’s license was suspended. If the county attorney declines for any reason, the city attorney (normally!) would then be free to persue the lesser 28-672. Apparently only an intense amount of community pressure (including facebook) caused Tucson City Attorney Laura Brynwood to step up and do the right thing and charge Kinnar with 28-672.

    Jan 29, 2011 news piece on the trial and sentence. The dispute now, the appeal, is over the sentence which somehow was assigned 25 each for two deaths plus one serious injury. Sounds like the judge threw the book at him, which he should have, his prior record should have been considered in sentencing.

    news piece dated Feb 10, 2011

    The victim’s names are distinctive: Lorrie Schlecht, 55, her daughter Casie Roden, 34, and her granddaughter, Caia Roden, 4

  5. The motorist involved in the collision and death of cyclist David Cornelius of Flagstaff eventually plead guilty(responsible)/no-contest to making a bad left (28-772) and 28-672. The plea has him paying a fine of $113 for the 772, and $200 for the 672. As far as i can tell, that is the entire sanction (no license suspension, for example), any sort of civil suit or restitution notwithstanding.

    These cases can take quite some time to finalize. The collision happened in Sept 2010. I began to get concerned that nothing seemed to be happening as the 1-year time limit (for issuing citations) approached.

    Here’s a scan of the plea deal court records.

    Case Number: M-0341-TR-2011006062
    Title: ST OF AZ VS KILCOIN KYLE Category: Traffic
    Court: Flagstaff Municipal Filing Date: 08/14/2011
    Judge: E-CITATION Disposition Date: 02/21/2012
    KYLE KILCOIN DEFENDANT – D 1 Date of Birth: 04/1991
    Citation Count Description Disp. Date Disposition
    C00202438 1 FAIL TO YIELD ON LEFT TURN AT INTERSECTION 02/21/2012 PLEA GUILTY/RESP SENT IMPOSED
    C00202438 2 ACCIDENT W/SERIOUS PHYS INJURY 02/21/2012 PLEA GUILTY/RESP SENT IMPOSED

  6. Here’s some legislative history of 28-672; it is pretty recent, it’s only been around since 1998:

    Notably, 28-672 was “criminalized” quite recently (probably 2006. it was 47th 2nd regular seesion) before that it was a civil-only penalty. HB2208

    28-672 was added in 1998, and had just: 645A3(a), 772, and 855B (traffic control signal legend, left turns, and stop signs).

    In 2004, added were: 792, 794, 797E6
    In 2006, added were: 857A (HB2389)
    In 2007, added were: 857A (HB2052)
    (identical change by both bills for school busses)
    In 2008, change 797 sections (probably for consistency with
    modifications to 797?)
    In 2010, added were: 729, 771, 773

    So suggesting changes to this section is not predisposed to failure.

  7. http://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/00807.htm
    […] An order of restitution in favor of a person does not preclude that person from bringing a separate civil action and proving in that action damages in excess of the amount of the restitution order that is actually paid.

    So a 28-672 restitution is limitted to 10,000$, but will be prosecuted
    by the state with burden of proof of “reasonable doubt” . A civil lawsuit by the injured party or family can recover any amount in excess of $10000, and will be tried with burden of proof of “preponderance of evidence”.


    Justin adds later:

    it seems to me that successful prosecution, by the state, beyond “reasonable doubt” of a moving violation by way of ARS 28-672 gives very high confidence (assuming no new evidence, etc) in winning any subsequent civil lawsuit, for which the burden of proof is lower: “preponderance of evidence”.

    Contrast with ARS 28-1599, which asserts that “responsibility” for a (corresponding) civil traffic offense is (by default) not evidence of negligence.
    http://www.azleg.gov/ars/28/01599.htm

  8. In Prescott city court #2012090327C, Angeline Saraceno-Matthews plead guilty to 28-672 for consequences of running a red light, fatally striking a pedestrian, 92 year-old Arnold Christensen, on Friday April 27(?), 2012. See also #2012050065C in which she was cited for 28-701A (speed) and 28-4135C (insurance), and #2012070696J in which the police submitted the case for review of negligent homicide, which the county attorney declined to charge.

    6/11/2013 SENTENCING ORDER:
    http://71.216.160.127/csp/pcc/csp4.csp?MATTHEWS,ANGELINA_MARIE_SARACENO&DKT=2012090327C&REP=6971&TOT=32

    1. Defendant is ordered to pay a fine/sanction: Chg 1: 28-672A Accident Involving Serious Physical Injury: $1800.00, Total Restitution: $2447.75, Time Payment: $20: Total Fine: $4267.75

    3. Restitution will remain open for 90 days and shall be capped at $10,000.00

    4. Defendant is ORDERED to complete Traffic Survival School pursuant to ARS 28-672(B). IT IS ORDERED defendant’s driver license be suspended for 180 days..

    I had faxed this Tuesday evening (although I have some doubts it even
    got to the relevant persons):
    http://azbikelaw.org/contrib/records/done/sentencing-memo-saraceno

    —-

    some background on the case
    http://www.dcourier.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=106025
    http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/20120501prescott-pedestrian-hit-by-truck-dies.html

    I believe there was some miscommunication either between the PD and the newspapers, or between the papers and the public. The original article said “the driver failed to stop” and omitted “for a red light”. And some articles (still) say “Authorities are looking for the truck’s driver.”

  9. see:
    http://azbikelaw.org/bad-weekend-in-scottsdale/#comment-17846
    for an example of using 28-729 (in addition to or instead of 28-735) to enable charging drivers for criminal driving when they are “straddling” the edgeline (or bike lane stripe) and strike a cyclist from behind causing serious injury or death. The 729 enables 28-672, whereas 735 does not — this was an MSCO (Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office) case.
    This was the infamous GPS-distracted driver who causes a triple serious injury to victims Lito Silla, Scott Drozdz and Brent Holderman. The 672 allows for more serious consequences such as license suspension, that is not possible with just a civil traffic infraction.

  10. excerpts from Tim Stellar’s Column from Steller: In Tucson, lives of walkers, cyclists are cheap October 2013:

    None is more heart-rending than that of Simon Foster, 7, whose father, Don, took him and his sister, Charlie, 5, to dinner at McDonald’s at East Speedway and North Alvernon Way the evening of Sept. 29. Afterward, as they were crossing Speedway, on a green light and in the crosswalk, a driver simply turned right and plowed into them, police reports say.

    That driver, 31-year-old Saylee Solo, is facing a misdemeanor charge that, at the outside, could land her in jail for 30 days. More likely, she’ll be fined and have her license suspended for a couple of months.

    Solo did not answer my call, but Simon’s mother, Laura Withrow, said police told her that Solo was looking west down Speedway for oncoming traffic when she turned east and struck the trio.

    …That’s the nub of the difficult legal problem. Inattention by drivers of multithousand-pound missiles is killing and maiming walkers and bikers around Tucson week after week, month after month. But because the drivers aren’t drunk, or street racing or doing something else despicable, they escape with relatively mild consequences.

    A Tucson attorney who frequently represents bicyclists, Eric Post, says Arizona’s laws are OK — the greater problem is our car-centric culture and how that influences the officers who enforce the laws. A typical example, Post said, is the bicyclist who is crossing a street in the crosswalk but is hit by a turning vehicle.

    If the officer cites anyone, it will be the bicyclist, for riding on the sidewalk before getting to the crosswalk, he said.

    The basic message, Post said: “It was OK to run over a human being in the crosswalk.”

    That’s a faulty message, whether the human is on a bike or on two feet.

    “Drivers are supposed to be looking at what’s in front of them, and most drivers should be able to stop for a pedestrian whether they’re in the crosswalk or not,” Post said.

    Yes, bicyclists are supposed to ride in the street, to the right. Yes, pedestrians are supposed to cross the street at crosswalks or intersections.

    But, no, their failure to do so does not absolve drivers from their responsibility to see and avoid them.

    Yet, after a pedestrian is struck by a vehicle, Tucson police time and again put out press releases that in effect blame the victim by saying he or she “was not in a crosswalk” or “wearing dark clothing” at night

  11. Laurie Roberts did a write-up on a 672 that I was not aware of… a red-light runner killed a ped, Frank Frassetto Jr., in crosswalk. According to the story, the driver (identified only as an 18- year-old male) had his license suspended for 90 days, along with some community service.

    An intersting passage: “(the victim’s widow) believes (the driver) was fiddling with his cell phone though there’s no proof of that. Police wouldn’t subpoena his phone records, telling her it didn’t matter.”

    speaking of doesn’t matter: Cellphone use DOES seem to have mattered in the case of the death of DPS officer Tim Huffman, or perhaps it shows an evolving attitude towards potential cell use.

    Laurie’s column never identified the department; the collision was at 28th Drive and Peoria, occurred 11/12/2012. (probaly Phoenix PD, i would have to look that one up).

    The type of red-light running, a mid-cycle, was described as follows: “He claimed he was fiddling with his sun visor and didn’t see the light change. Or apparently the cars in the lanes to the right and left of him, the ones that were stopped at the light when he went barreling by.” This is very similar to the red-light-running that killed 11(?or possibly 13)-year-old Megan Irene Lee on 6/23/2009 in Glendale. The driver said she was distracted, and denied cell phone use; Glendale PD did not obtain phone records, either. The driver was also charged w/672; I never found the outcome.

  12. There was a serious injury collision at Drake and Roger in Pima County yesterday, 4/6/2016 daylight. Bicyclist
    FB thread shows damage to the vehicle involved with a crushed in passenger-side windshield. The bicycle has front-end damage; with the fork crushed back and the head-tube crunched.
    The victim’s description of the crash said “I was following traffic laws traveling in my Lane when the car swerved into me”. If the van were turning left, for that to work out consistent with the damage, the van would have been traveling e/b on Roger attempting left to Drake, while the cyclist was w/b Roger.
    A bad left, 28-772, means that the driver should be charged with 28-672 given the serious injury. Serious, but thankfully not life-threatening; victim is home today recuperating.

  13. I spoke with Joe Terranova, an attorney doing criminal law in Yuma, mid-2015 (july; the appeal came in October; see gmail for the thread) who was handling a 28-672 case… he was “filing an appeal on behalf of a young driver who seriously injured 6 motorcyclists last year, convicted of 28-672, and ordered to pay $2.5 million partial restitution when the city-court judge found 28-672 unconstitutional and severed the $10K limitation”…
    then later
    ” fyi, my client won her appeal. The statute 28-672 was found constitutional in limiting criminal restitution to $10K total, regardless of the number of victims”
    Just a side note about “unconstitutional”… a city court judge’s (or superior court, for that matter) finding creates no precedent; minimum is a published case from Arizona Court of Appeals to establish a precedent.
    I didn’t really follow the jist of it, e.g. i have no idea where a 2.5M restitution could have possibly come from (?). He also had some issues with the law that I feel are more like complaints — e.g. the PDs (public defenders) are well-enough paid for such a case; and that the courts are too busy to spend time on a 28-672. I think/thought the case had to do with 6 counts (one per victim) versus 1 count; but I’m not sure… that still wouldn’t explain the $2.5M.

    Case Number: S-1400-CR-201501048
    Title: STATE OF ARIZONA APPELLEE VS Category: Criminal
    Court: Yuma County Superior Filing Date: 9/17/2015
    STATE OF ARIZONA APPELLEE / KATIA VALENCIA APPELLANT

    The case in Yuma Muni apparently is TR-2013003527; but seems to be incorrectly marked as a seatbelt violation. In any event Ms. Valencia also has a number of prior traffic beefs.

    Separately, there is a civil lawsuit in federal (why federal?) court, Loveland v. Valencia United States District Court, D. Arizona That motion is the defendants (loveland and the other motorcyclists) claim various financial shenanigans on the part of the defendants (the Valencias), improperly trying to hide/conceal/protect assets.

  14. Fatal (or serious) crash investigations can and sometimes should quite reasonably take a long time, and should not be rushed. Like Bicycle Tucson mentioned, in this case, the victim died later (though that really shouldn’t change anything; it was apparent from the get-go the crash resulted in a serious injury).
    The police investigate and then normally shoot it to the *county* attorney. The county attorney may well add more time delay. The county attorney looks for serious/criminal behaviors which would lead to some sort of homicide charge; and will almost always decline any charges unless they think the driver was impaired.
    If they decline charges, the police [according to the information they themselves released] should cite the driver for xyz AND CHARGE THE DRIVER WITH 28-672 (“causing death by moving violation” or somesuch). The *city* attorney will have to prosecute it, as it’s a (minor) criminal charge, and it will be in municipal, not superior, court.
    Although it’s a minor criminal charge, there are some penalties that should make a driver sit up and take notice, e.g. the judge can suspend the driver’s license for up to 180 days.
    http://azbikelaw.org/arizona-already-has-a-vulnerable…/

    There is some interesting stuff in a memo put out by Tucson City Attorney a couple years ago, this policy (of not prosecuting any 28-672 charges) has since apparently been reversed:
    http://azbikelaw.org/28-672-in-the-news/comment-page-1/#comment-7615

  15. Would you happen to know the legislative history or at least the Bill # of 28-708? I would like to know what prompted the state legislature to pass the drag racing/exhibition of speed law.

    Thank you

  16. On March 18th , 2016 a Ford F-150 did a failure to yield and I was on my HD 2011 Ultra limited.
    I was transfered to Scottsdale Trauma where the out -look did not look good.
    Fast foward to Dec 5th, 2016 I have the opportunity to see him in court as he was also charged with an 28-672A.
    I have no idea as to exactly say before a judge.
    I lost a very promising job do to this and still today 11-25-2016 am still suffering thru the accident.
    Any words of wisdom will help. BTW, Wife will never allow me to own another M/C.

Comments are closed.