“Evidence of Identity” Rides Again

Is this valid ID for John Doe under 28-1595C?

I’ve been following this since as far back as 1999 (a deaf-mute bicyclist was arrested and held in jail overnight because he lacked ID); with some interesting updates in 2014 (police demanding ID from an ostensibly “jaywalking” pedestrian).

The rules revolving around operators of a motor vehicle are pretty clear; drivers must have a valid drivers license for other reasons (e.g. to comply with §28-3151 ), and the DL satisfies the elements set forth in 28-1595: name, address, height, etc — but for everyone else it’s remain vague, and in fact court rulings have (repeatedly) looked at the non-motorist provision and struck it down, most recently in 2003 Atkins; and the law hasn’t changed since. Continue reading ““Evidence of Identity” Rides Again”

Arizona e-bike model municipal law

ca-e-bike-cropped[UPDATE: spring 2018 in AZ State legislature, HB2652, has PASSED; how this relates to local laws isn’t completely clear to me]

This is not coincidentally  similar to legislation passed in California in 2015, and pushed by People For Bikes along with the e-bike industry, so start there. I say similar because it’s odd it doesn’t follow the class 1/2/3 in the CA (and as of Aug 2018 the AZ law?)

Electric bikes fall under the category of what Arizona calls a Motorized Bicycle at the state level. There are a number of gotchas involved, which have been copiously documented on these pages, e.g. start here. The main gotcha is illustrated below about unwittingly needing a drivers license, insurance and registration.

No municipality can fix these gotchas, they can only be addressed by the state legislature. I can only speculate the idea is for Tempe (or whoever; there is similar effort for MAG to recommend/adopt model regulations) to adopt rules that would in effect only kick in when the state “fixes” the state statutes. Continue reading “Arizona e-bike model municipal law”

AZ Legislators finally ban (some) photo enforcement

(Photo: Mark Henle/The Republic)
(Photo: Mark Henle/The Republic)

After a decade (or more?), Arizona lawmakers have finally banned photo-enforcement; but only on roads which are part of the State Highway System. Lest you be confused, the state highway system includes not only the interstates and other “controlled-access”/ freeways, but  many miles of country highway, and also includes some what would appear to be normal city streets.

The state of arizona did used to have photo enforcement years ago on some freeways; but were removed by executive, not legislative, action.

Anyway, there are two. I mean two camera locations, in the entire state, that are affected by the ban. (I am unclear as to whether these were only speed, or red-light, or both, or just what). Continue reading “AZ Legislators finally ban (some) photo enforcement”

Arizona’s “Truth in Sentencing” Law

Sentencing Reference Material

Criminal Code Sentencing Provisions; currently 2017-2018

If that link goes dead, there’s a landing page at azcourts.gov for the sentencing material.

Sentencing is fairly intricate; With felony crimes the primary determinant being whether or not the crime is sentenced as “dangerous” vs. “non-dangerous”; this apparently is determined on a case-by-case basis; and non-dangerous crimes are all probation-eligible (meaning can be no prison time; even for serious offenses)

References; here are the general rules, there are many other sub-categories with special rules for offenses e.g. involving children, or drugs:

  • §13-707 misdemeanor jail sentence
  • §13-802 misdemeanor fines
  • §13-702 felony prison / non-dangerous offenses (all probationable) / non-repetitive
  • §13-704 felony prison / dangerous offenses (not probationable) / first offenders
  • §13-801 & §13-803 felony fines

Also note that, unlike a civil judgement, criminal restitution is not dischargable through bankruptcy.

§13-708. Involves sentencing for crimes committed when out on release for earlier felony crimes, see e.g. case of Frank Kitko.

Class 1?

The felony rules above, like 702/4, as well as the reference guide only cover class 2 through 6. What about class 1?

(In Arizona’s homicide world, Neg Hom is a class 4, Manslaughter is class 2, and 1st AND 2nd Degree Murder is class 1.)

13-710 Sentence for second degree murder
1st degree murder is: 13-1105
Sentence of death or life imprisonment 13-751.

Apparently 1st and 2nd degree murder are the only Felony Class 1 crimes.

Vehicular Assault / Vehicular Homicide

References to homicide / assault:

Jury Instructions

As a reference document: The State Bar of Arizona publishes a lengthy document — Revised Arizona Jury Instruction (Criminal) currently in its 4th Ed 2018, direct link

And contains amongst the instructions useful references to relevant case law.

Arizona’s “Truth in Sentencing” Law

I feel like I’ve looked this up before…
Arizona passed a major overhaul to the state’s sentencing code (Senate Bill 1049, Chapter 255, 1993 laws) in the 1993 legislative session. Annoyingly, the online lookup azleg.gov doesn’t go back before 1997, so at the moment I don’t have access to the bill itself. (need to look it up thru library). Continue reading “Arizona’s “Truth in Sentencing” Law”

Vulnerable user legislation in Wisconsin

Readers of azbikelaw might remember I am not a fan of vulnerable user laws for reasons stated in the main article. There’s no denying this has become a major rallying point among large majorities of bicycle advocates.

Whether you think this type of law is a good idea or a bad idea,  the interplay between a bicyclist group and a motorcyclist group in Wisconsin could be informative…

Jump to the Wisconsin materials in the main article.

The REAL ID kerfluffle

In 2007 (or was it 2008; it was the 48th 2nd regular session) the state of Arizona inserted a new law into the transportation code that specifcally prevents ADOT (“the department”) from issuing DLs or IDs (i.e. motor vehicle drivers licenses, or in the case of non-drivers, state issued identification cards) that complied with federal REAL ID requirements. HB2677

The bill created statute 28-336. Continue reading “The REAL ID kerfluffle”

Legislation to ban Photo Enforcement

photo: The Republic
photo: The Republic

In what has become an annual ritual, a certain cadre of Republican state legislators bring forth numerous bills designed to limit / curtail / eliminate photo enforcement. This posting covers the 52nd Legislature, 1st Regular session’s activities, that is the Spring of 2015. Continue reading “Legislation to ban Photo Enforcement”

What do sawed off shotguns have to do with photo enforcement?

bear with me here…

Senate OKs bill to allow sawed-off shotguns, silencers

Arizona’s Senate gave preliminary approval Monday to a bill that would end the state’s ban on sawed-off shotguns and silencers on weapons… The proposal, contained in a surprise amendment to Senate Bill 1460, passed with Republican support and Democratic opposition… The amendment, introduced by Sen. Kelli Ward, R-Lake Havasu City, was tacked onto her bill to restore gun rights to those with felony convictions after certain waiting periods or after the convictions are legally set aside. Ward said her amendment was “constituent driven” and about “making certain things legal that are illegal,” a vague description that drew hushed snickers from some in the Senate.

“My own view,” Ward said during a break in the session, “is we have the right to keep and bear arms, and really, that right shouldn’t be infringed. The government putting any kind of regulations on that is wrong.” — azcentral.com

Meanwhile, the full senate voted down Rep. Ward’s bill to end all photo-enforcement anywhere in Arizona:

Senate slams brakes on photo-enforcement ban

The gov’t is watching you Kelli Ward’s privacy nightmare?

Mind your speed: Photo enforcement will continue to be a tool local governments can use to control traffic, as the state Senate on Monday rejected a bill that would have banned red-light cameras and other technologies.

The issue drew bipartisan opposition, despite the argument from Sen. Kelli Ward, R-Lake Havasu City, that photo enforcement is unconstitutional and infringes on individual privacy… Safety, and an acknowledgment that local government is better able to gauge its traffic needs, prevailed as four GOP senators joined with the Democrats to kill Senate Bill 1167. Cities and towns lobbied against Ward’s bill, pointing to statistics that they say show the cameras, especially when used for red-light enforcement, cut accidents. … Ward, however, disputed many of the statistics and said the greater issue is what she perceives as the unconstitutionality of photo enforcement in the first place. Such devices, she said, collect information without the consent of the driver that can be stored by private companies and governments for later use, and they infringe on privacy rights. “You have no right to face your accuser,” when photo enforcement is used, she said. — azcentral.com


Continue reading “What do sawed off shotguns have to do with photo enforcement?”

52R1 Legislature up and running

The new legislative session, 52nd / 1st Regular, is going full bore. State Senator Kavanagh is making panhandling his signature issue. Sen Kavanagh sits on the Public Safety committee.

  • SB1063: obstructing a highway; public thoroughfare
  • SB1094: aggressive solicitation; offense

Continue reading “52R1 Legislature up and running”

Arizona Legislature considers defining motorized quadricycles

The tourdetavern.com has been operating in Scottsdale since 2012.

[UPDATE — this bill was passed, i believe in exactly the same form as was vetoed last year, we have a new governor.  HB2211 in 52 1st regular session, 2015. The bill also included autocycles ]

[VETO — gov. Brewer vetoed this bill… “Brewer in her veto said the bill could pose a public-safety risk, primarily if passengers are drinking alcohol.” ]

Somewhere out of the blue; House trans committee chairperson Rep Karen Fann introduced an amendment that makes definitions and regulations for commercial multiple-person, pedaled, motor-assisted quadricycles. Often offered as a “party bus” where the riders drink and pedal around (presumably the driver remains sober). This is an amendment to SB1201 a striker bill that defined Autocycle as essentially an enclosed 3-wheeled motorcycle.  Continue reading “Arizona Legislature considers defining motorized quadricycles”

More about shoulders; this time golf carts.

Sample “excessively wide” road in Sun City, AZ. This is Boswell Blvd, somewhere south of Bell Rd. You can clearly see the golf cart “tracks” in the shoulder.

There is an interesting bill floating around in the state legislature, HB2027 (see
bill-tracker to follow this and other bills of interest)

Direct link to HB2027 — golf carts allowed to use shoulder. For much more about shoulder usage, see shoulder-use.

The first odd thing is the bill is written so it only applies to age restricted communities in unincorporated areas of counties more than 3 million population.(phew! Translation: Sun City, Sun City West, etc. It also, come to think of it, applies to Sun Lakes.). Continue reading “More about shoulders; this time golf carts.”

51st Leg, 2nd regular session bill tracker (spring 2014)

Bills affecting cyclists

This legislative session is now over; each bill’s disposition is noted below…

SB1170 bicycle equipment (helmet requirement for < 18 y.o.)

Bill Status: Assigned to Trans and PS (Public Safety) but not on agenda to be heard. [Final status: never heard]

azbikelaw says: mandatory helmet use laws tend to have the unintended consequence of reducing cycling. The safety benefits of bicyclist helmet use tend to overstated.

HB2677 theft; bicycle; increased penalty

Bill Status: Assigned to Judiciary but not on agenda. [Final status: never heard]

HB2545 bicyclists; public ways
Bill Status: on agenda 2/13 house trans committee; at the hearing, without any notice, the bill was not heard w/o explanation (last few seconds of the hearing). [Final status: Held/never heard] Continue reading “51st Leg, 2nd regular session bill tracker (spring 2014)”

2013: Bill would ban cell phone use by novice teen drivers

[Update as of 2/23/2013, The McComish novice cell ban, SB1241, is moving forward. The Farley full text ban SB1218 is dead. See below ]
[Update as of 4/4/2013 McComish bill appears stalled, it is being prevented from coming to a vote in full senate. In other news, Farley tried again, via amendment, to get a texting ban; see notes below on SB2378]

It’s the start of a new legislative season in Arizona, the 51st Regular session, for those keeping track.  (find other bills of interest with the legislation tag)

A cell phone ban has been introduced, SB1241. The same (or similar?) bill was introduced last year, bill-would-ban-cell-phone-use-by-teen-drivers-with-learners-permits. The bill applies only to “novice” drivers, that is those who are 16-18 years old, and the ban only lasts for 6 months. On the brighter side, it is a total ban, which I prefer to, say, a handsfree exception. For background, see NTSB has called for a total ban. Continue reading “2013: Bill would ban cell phone use by novice teen drivers”

Bills modify the 3 foot passing law

[Update as of 2/23/2013, neither bill mentioned below has been assigned to any committee which I imagine means it is dead]

It’s the start of a new legislative season in Arizona, the 51st Regular session, for those keeping track. (find other bills of interest with the legislation tag)

There are two bills that would modify §28-735, Arizona’s 3-foot passing rule. The first is only a technical correction, however the second seeks to modify the onerous “section C”. By far the best and most simple correction would be to simply eliminate section C altogether. In any event, the present proposal seeks add specific reasons (excuses?) why a bicyclist might not be in an otherwise passable bike lane; e.g. preparing to turn, passing another cyclist…

HB2452 technical correction; overtaking bicycles
SB1300 passing bicycles; civil penalty

Section C was added by Senator Bee as a “floor amendment” (ie. last minute) and is widely viewed as anti-cyclist. More background on the law here, called HB2625 from the year 2000. Although I don’t know of any time section C has ever actually kicked in; it has caused confusion causing some to either mendaciously or ignorantly claim that 3-foot passing minimum does not apply to overtaking bicyclists traveling in a bike lane (including more than one Flagstaff police officer).

Some background on 3-foot laws:

Deep background on AZ’s law: azbikelaw.org/articles/ThreeFoot.html

Compendium of US states with similar laws:  azbikelaw.org/three-foot-passing-laws

about the “confusion” regarding applicability of AZ law to roads with bike lanes: azbikelaw.org/the-city-of-flagstaff-hates-bicyclists/


Motorized Bicycle bill seeks to clarify engine power

[Update as of 2/23/2013, HB2177 has not been assigned to any committee which I imagine means it is dead]

It’s the start of a new legislative season in Arizona, the 51st Regular session, for those keeping track. (find other bills of interest with the legislation tag) Continue reading “Motorized Bicycle bill seeks to clarify engine power”