SB1624 would revise Arizona’s photo radar and other photo-enforcement rules for civil traffic violations. The bill states that a person who receives a mailed notice of violation for speeding or failure to obey a traffic control device captured by a photo enforcement system does not have to identify the driver or respond to the notice. It also requires the notice to say it is not a court-issued document and warns that nonresponse may lead to formal service and added service costs.
The bill requires a law enforcement agency, rather than a photo enforcement company, to review the recorded evidence before a citation is issued, and makes it a class 1 misdemeanor for a photo enforcement company to determine whether a violation occurred for citation purposes. It also sets out alternative service-of-process procedures, including certified mail, regular mail, and posting at the residence or business, while barring suspension or revocation of driving privileges based on a citation served that way.
If a person is found responsible for a photo-enforcement civil traffic violation, the bill caps the civil penalty at $75 and prohibits the violation from being used to suspend or revoke a driver license, transmitted to the Motor Vehicle Division as an abstract of record, or used by insurers to raise rates, deny coverage, or refuse renewal. In effect, the bill narrows the downstream consequences of photo-radar tickets and limits how those violations can be processed and enforced by government agencies and insurers.
The bill appears to have had mixed but generally favorable support in committee and on the floor before being vetoed. It passed the Senate Public Safety Committee 6-1, advanced through Senate Rules, and passed third reading in the Senate 25-2. In the House, it received a 4-2 vote in Transportation & Infrastructure and cleared House Rules 8-0. The veto indicates that, despite legislative support, the measure ultimately did not become law.
The main points of contention center on photo radar enforcement itself: supporters appear to favor limiting automated enforcement, reducing penalties, and protecting drivers from administrative and insurance consequences, while opponents likely object to weakening enforcement tools and restricting the ability of agencies and insurers to treat these violations like other traffic offenses. The bill also raises concerns about the role of private photo enforcement companies, since it criminalizes company-led citation determinations and shifts review responsibility to law enforcement.
Impact
SB1624 would amend A.R.S. § 28-1602 governing photo enforcement violations. It would change notice, service, and review procedures for photo radar citations; limit penalties to a maximum $75 civil penalty; prohibit license suspension/revocation and MVD abstract transmission based on these violations; and bar insurers from using them for underwriting or rate-setting. It also would impose a class 1 misdemeanor on photo enforcement companies that determine whether a violation occurred for citation purposes, thereby increasing state oversight and reducing the practical consequences of photo-enforcement tickets for drivers.
Sentiment
Legislative sentiment appears generally supportive but not unanimous. The bill advanced with solid margins in the Senate and House committees and on third reading, suggesting a meaningful coalition favored the changes to photo radar enforcement. At the same time, the veto shows the proposal did not have final executive support, indicating continued disagreement over whether the bill would appropriately balance traffic safety enforcement, due process, and limits on automated ticketing.
Contention
The central contention is whether photo enforcement should be treated as a limited civil process or as a stronger enforcement mechanism with broader consequences. Supporters of the bill likely wanted to reduce burdens on recipients of mailed notices, prevent private vendors from effectively issuing citations, and shield drivers from license and insurance consequences. Opponents likely viewed those changes as undermining deterrence and enforcement of speeding and red-light violations. The bill’s restrictions on insurer use of violations and its criminal penalty for company involvement in citation decisions are especially likely to have been controversial.