addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-leftarrow-right-10x10arrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscontroller-playcredit-cardcrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobe--smallglobegmailgooglegroupshelp-with-circleimageimagesinstagramFill 1languagelaunch-new-window--smalllight-bulblinklocation-pinlockm-swarmSearchmailmediummessagesminusmobilemoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1ShapeoutlookpersonJoin Group on CardStartprice-ribbonprintShapeShapeShapeShapeImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruserwarningyahooyoutube

CameraFRAUD.com Message Board › DPS Rep Says that Redflex Employees are Agents of the State

DPS Rep Says that Redflex Employees are Agents of the State

Stacey
user 8519450
Scottsdale, AZ
Post #: 273
Makes it that much easier to sue the state when a Redflex employee gets hurt or killed.


COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE


Minutes of Meeting

Thursday, March 5, 2009


In response to Mr. Crump’s question, Lieutenant King stated that all Redflex employees go through the DPS background checks and are brought on as agents of the state and hold a letter from the director of DPS stating that they can act on behalf of the state as an agent. He answered a question regarding temporary signs, stating that the drivers of the vans are required, prior to setting up, to place the signs 300 feet to one half mile away from the van, unless there is a geographical issue.


http://www.azleg.gov/...­
Stacey
user 8519450
Scottsdale, AZ
Post #: 274
So, I would hope the Redflex employees (agents of the state) receive the same benefits as off duty DPS officers:

The policy shall be endorsed to include the following additional insured language: “The State of Arizona, its departments, agencies, boards, commissions,universities and its officers, officials, agents, and employees shall be named as additional insureds with respect to liability arising out of the activities performed by or on behalf of the Contractor".

http://sess.azdps.gov...­
Michael M.
AZChargersFan
Glendale, AZ
Post #: 50
Couldn't the photoradar driver's family that was killed use this statement to get paid by the state for his death. If so more power to them.
Ryan
user 8465433
Peoria, AZ
Post #: 7
The designation is still pretty meaningless. They are still not Peace Officers.
A former member
Post #: 18
The designation is still pretty meaningless. They are still not Peace Officers.


This DPS statement is somewhat problematic because of the definition of "peace officer" found at ARS 1-215 which includes"commissioned personnel of the department of public safety".

"Commissioned" and "personnel" are neither one defined in the relevant sections of ARS and are open for interpretation thru plain language meaning.

Remember ARS 32-2401 defines "private investigator" as someone "other than an on duty peace officer".

The DPS statement made to Rep. Crump regarding "agents" is extremely clever and was likely the result of carefull legal analysis on the part of DPS and/or Redflex.

Some serious questions arise: 1) when did DPS give written designation to Redflex empl'ees stating they are "agents"

2) does such action violate portions of the DPS Redflex contact stating Redflex and its employees are in no way employees ....or agents of the state,

3) will the state of Arizona acquiesce to to liability that legally arises out of principle/agent relationships?
Stacey
user 8519450
Scottsdale, AZ
Post #: 278
The designation is still pretty meaningless. They are still not Peace Officers.


This DPS statement is somewhat problematic because of the definition of "peace officer" found at ARS 1-215 which includes"commissioned personnel of the department of public safety".

"Commissioned" and "personnel" are neither one defined in the relevant sections of ARS and are open for interpretation thru plain language meaning.

Remember ARS 32-2401 defines "private investigator" as someone "other than an on duty peace officer".

The DPS statement made to Rep. Crump regarding "agents" is extremely clever and was likely the result of carefull legal analysis on the part of DPS and/or Redflex.

Some serious questions arise: 1) when did DPS give written designation to Redflex empl'ees stating they are "agents"

2) does such action violate portions of the DPS Redflex contact stating Redflex and its employees are in no way employees ....or agents of the state,

3) will the state of Arizona acquiesce to to liability that legally arises out of principle/agent relationships?
David, if you scroll back a few pages you will find that Sean posted the contract on one of the threads.
Stacey
user 8519450
Scottsdale, AZ
Post #: 279
The designation is still pretty meaningless. They are still not Peace Officers.
Isn't this how Redflex won a court case in Louisiana? Since they were agents of the state they didn't need an PI license.
A former member
Post #: 19
The designation is still pretty meaningless. They are still not Peace Officers.
Isn't this how Redflex won a court case in Louisiana? Since they were agents of the state they didn't need an PI license.


But each state's statutes are a little different and so too is the case law interpreting the issues and definitions. Also, legislative intent is a factor in determining the meaning of statutes.

DPS and Redflex have been alarmingly quiet on the private investigator statute issues. With as much at stake, be sure they are preparing well researched defenses to the issue.
A former member
Post #: 108
I filed a complaint with DPS licensing about the PI license. The first response I recieved was that I didn't fill out the forms properly, or they didn't transfer right. I think it was an excuse not to investigate. Then a few days ago I got another unsolicited response.

"The Arizona Department of Public Safety has sought legal advice on this
topic in the past. The conclusion that was reached is that RedFlex
employees are not required to be licensed as private investigators."

I will reply to this new e-mail in a few days. I want to know, On what bases that conclusion was made? It will be interisting to see where this leads.

A former member
Post #: 21
Update:

Just looked this up. It is a section from the AZ admin. Code. Conclusion - Redflex emp'ees are not peace officers.

R13-4-103. Certification of Peace Officers

A. Certified status mandatory. A person who is not certified by the Board or whose certified status is inactive shall not function as a peace officer or be assigned the duties of a peace officer by an agency, except as provided in subsection (B).

B. Sheriffs are exempt from the requirement of certified status.

"Board" means the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board

Powered by mvnForum

People in this
group are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy