AZ lawmaker gets speeding ticket

By Howard Fischer
Capitol Media Services
PHOENIX -- Calling her claim a "political charade,'' an attorney for Tucson is asking a federal judge to toss out claims by former Sen. Justine Wadsack that her civil rights were violated when she was stopped for speeding and later given a citation.
In a new court filing Tuesday, Joseph Williams said it is true that Ryder Schrage, a Tucson police officer, pulled over the Tucson Republican on East Speedway on March 15, 2024. The officer said he had followed her and clocked her on his radar going 71 miles an hour in a 35 mph zone.
But Williams told U.S. District Court Judge Jennifer Zipps there was nothing unusual about the stop.
"This instance was a routine traffic procedure, the consequences of which most people would accept,'' he said.
Williams said the officer's personal observation provided sufficient probable cause for the stop. And that was only cemented after Wadsack told Schrage she was a legislator and was "racing to get home'' because the battery in her all-electric Tesla was about to die.
If anything, Williams said, Wadsack did get special treatment: Because she was a legislator, the officer waited until after the end of the session to issue a citation for both criminal speeding -- the legal classification for driving more than 20 miles over the posted speed limit -- and failure to provide proof of car insurance.
That is because the Arizona Constitution says legislators "shall be privileged from arrests in all cases except treason, felony and breach of the peace'' starting from 15 days ahead of the legislative session and running until lawmakers adjourn for the year.
Her case was dismissed in January after she completed a defensive driving course and proved she had the legally required coverage. Then she filed an $8 million suit against the officer and various superiors, claiming the traffic stop and the decision to cite her all was part of a conspiracy to silence her politically.
That conspiracy, according to Dennis Wilenchik, her attorney, also included police leaking information about the citation to the media. And that, he said, resulted in her losing her 2024 reelection bid in the GOP primary to Vince Leach in LD 17 which covers portions of eastern and northern Pima County into Pinal County. Leach then went on to win the general election.
Williams, in his filings in federal court, said there are a whole series of flaws in what Wadsack is claiming. And it starts, he said, with Schrage having the legally required probable cause to stop her in the first place.
He cited the officer's body camera footage where Wadsack admitted to be driving "in a hurry.''
When Wadsack denied going 70, the officer responded, "Yes, you were. I was behind you. I had my radar on.''
"Wadsack does not allege that officer Schrage was not behind her,'' Williams said. And even if the radar reading was inaccurate, as Wadsack claimed, Williams said that is irrelevant.
"Probable cause rests on Schrage's personal observation of her excessive speed from behind her,'' he said. "The radar merely quantified the magnitude of her illegal speed.''
Anyway, Williams said, even Wadsack does not challenge that she did not provide proof of legally required insurance when stopped.
Then there's Wadsack's claim that police officers were conspiring against her.
Wilenchik said it was "all part of a plan of members of the Tucson Police Department to act in concert with not yet known city officials to ruin plaintiff's good reputation because she was introducing legislation these members of TPD felt were adverse to their interests.''
All that, he said, was because she was investigating Tucson police, was an "outspoken critic'' of city government, was a member of the conservative Freedom Caucus, and "because she is a woman and her primary opponent was a man who TPD officials felt could be better controlled than plaintiff.''
One problem with all of that, Williams said, is that Wadsack's alleged investigation of the department occurred four months after she was stopped and "right before'' the citation was finally issued.
"Since the alleged investigation occurred after officer Schrage's traffic stop, it could not have been the basis for retaliation or falsifying probable cause for the speeding ticket,'' Williams said.
And he sniffed at her contention that she was denied equal protection as a woman or as a legislator.
"Wadsack provides no evidence that plausibly connects any of the defendants' actions to Wadsack's sex,'' Williams said. Nor, he said, has she shown that others -- males or non-legislators -- were treated any differently by Tucson police.
Then there's Wadsack's claim about police providing information to the media. And all that coverage, Wadsack said, ended up losing her votes in the GOP primary.
Only problem with that, Williams said, is that anything done by the media -- or the voters -- was not done under "color of state law'' which would make them liable for their acts.
Beyond that, he said the police had no involvement in the Republican primary.
"They did nothing to prohibit Wadsack from being on the ballot or running for election,'' Williams said.
"TPD's alleged action of 'leaking' information to the press did not cause Wadsack to lose the Republican primary,'' he said. "Wadsack does not allege that TPD had control over what the press chose to write or publish.''
And whatever was the reaction of voters to all this, Williams said, was "outside the control of TPD.''
Williams also had a response to Wadsack's claim that she was stopped because she was engaging in constitutionally protected activity: her decision to push two bills she she said the city did not like.
One would have scrapped voting centers -- where anyone can cast a ballot -- and instead returned to when people could vote only at their local precincts. The other sought a constitutional amendment to wipe out the ability of cities like Tucson to have home rule through their own charters.
Neither measure was approved.
Williams said that's all irrelevant. He said courts have ruled that the constitutionally protected First Amendment right of free speech -- grounds for a civil rights claim -- does not extend to governmental actions like promoting legislation.
No date has been set for Zipps to consider whether to let the case go to trial.
-30-
On X, Bluesky and Twitter: @azcapmedia