Challenge to Constitutional Protections
What began as a routine traffic stop in March has evolved into what Pinal County Attorney Elect Brad Miller describes as an unprecedented challenge to legislative protections in Arizona. On December 4th, during an interview on iHeart Radio with Garret Lewis, Miller discussed his investigation into Senator Justine Wadsack’s case, highlighting concerns about legislative immunity and citizens’ constitutional rights.
The Traffic Stop and Unusual Escalation
The sequence of events, as described by Senator Wadsack in the interview, began with what appeared to be a routine traffic stop. “There was never any discussion of the ticket,” Wadsack explained. “The word ‘ticket’ was never even brought up.” She described how the officer “pulled me over, took my license, went back to his vehicle, found out he was not going to give me a citation, gave me my license, and said I was free to go.”
What makes this case particularly notable, according to County Attorney Elect Miller, is that months after being told she was free to go, Senator Wadsack faced not a typical civil citation, but criminal charges – an escalation he characterizes as unprecedented for a legislator.
Evidence Practices Revealed
Through his investigation and depositions, County Attorney Elect Miller has uncovered what he sees as concerning practices regarding evidence retention. “The Tucson Police Department has no ability to print out or to provide any type of scientific evidence that a person is speeding when they use the radar gun,” Miller explained during the interview.
The investigation revealed additional concerns about reporting practices. According to Miller, during deposition, the officer involved in Senator Wadsack’s case stated that leaving out certain information was “part of his normal duties” when pulling someone over. Miller shared that the officer explained these reports were considered personal memory aids rather than evidence. When questioned about whether this practice was department policy, Miller noted that while “the officer wouldn’t admit whether they teach that specifically,” such practices “are not taught in the police academy.”
Chain of Command and Legislative Immunity Concerns
County Attorney Elect Miller’s investigation revealed what he describes as an unusual break from normal police procedure. During the interview, he detailed a meeting between Police Chief Chad Kasmar, the assistant police chief, and Lieutenant Pettey where, according to Miller, “they decided they didn’t care about the legislative immunity issue and were going to cite Senator Wadsack no matter what.” This decision particularly concerns Miller because, as he explained, “they went around the chain of command and had a lieutenant direct an on-street officer to issue a criminal citation for a state senator.”
The situation became more complex when Miller sought answers from police leadership. He shared during the interview that when he attempted to speak with Chief Kasmar about these practices, the chief’s legal counsel informed him that Kasmar would not participate in any interviews. In response, Miller announced his intention to file a motion requesting a judge compel Chief Kasmar’s testimony.
Constitutional Protection Dispute
The case has opened up a broader constitutional debate. According to County Attorney Elect Miller, the Tucson City Attorney’s office has taken the position that “no senator in Arizona, Democrat or Republican, has privilege under the Arizona constitution.” When Miller challenged this interpretation, he reports they cited legal precedents from Oklahoma. Miller stated: “They literally want us to follow other state law like in Oklahoma, and I told them straight up those don’t apply to this… this is Arizona. That’s not the law in Arizona. That’s not how we conduct business in Arizona.”
Purpose of Legislative Immunity
Senator Wadsack explained during the interview why legislative immunity exists in both the state and federal constitutions. “Legislative immunity exists in our Arizona constitution and in the United States constitution to keep from having this type of lawfare being used,” she stated. She elaborated that this protection serves a specific purpose: “You do not want to upset someone in the municipality and have them weaponize a citation against a legislator whether it stops them from having a vote or perhaps stops them from getting re-elected.”
Political Timing Questions
The timing of events has raised additional concerns for Senator Wadsack. During the interview, she revealed that “I didn’t even know about the summons coming to me until the 19th, but for some reason somehow this bodycam footage was leaked by TPD to the Tucson Sentinel and to my political opponent and his campaign consultant Chris Baker.” Her opponent, she noted, had “created a polished video of my bodycam footage and it’s already on TV before I even know that I’m being given a summons.”
Impact Beyond Legislative Immunity
While this case centers on a state senator, County Attorney Elect Miller argues the implications extend to every Tucson resident who receives a radar-based speeding ticket. Without retained radar data, he contends during the interview, citizens are left with only officer testimony as evidence against them. In criminal cases especially, where the burden of proof is higher, Miller suggests this practice raises significant constitutional concerns about citizens’ rights to confront evidence being used against them.
Resources for Affected Citizens
In response to these discoveries, County Attorney Elect Miller announced during the interview the creation of noradarnoticket.com. The website aims to gather information from Tucson residents who have received radar-based speeding tickets from TPD. “I think there’s a lot more people out there like Justine who have been wrongfully given a radar ticket,” Miller stated. The scope of impact could be substantial – Senator Wadsack estimated during the interview that this could affect “tens of thousands if not a hundred thousand people in Arizona in Southern Arizona in Tucson.”
Legal Guidance
For citizens concerned about future traffic stops, County Attorney Elect Miller offered clear advice during the interview: “The burden is on the government to provide that information. Just hand them your license and registration and say you won’t be answering any questions.”
The case continues to develop as Miller prepares his motion to compel Chief Kasmar’s testimony about these departmental practices. The outcome could have significant implications not only for legislative immunity but also for how traffic enforcement evidence is handled throughout Tucson.
