Complaint Review: ARIZONA DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY - Phoenix Arizona

Hey Lane, There isn't an ARS title 69, but "Joe B." from "Rocky Ford, Colorado" thought it would prove his immature point better if he added it into his response which I have quoted below (to save the effort of looking above) "You are hearing me but you are NOT LISTENING!! Who made the first threatening remark slick? You've just proven my point. Thanks for proving me to be correct once again. Now you'll post a reply in Rip Off Report about how you were proven wrong and feel cheated in life for trying to disseminate laws that the general public has no idea exist. One more thing, Read up on ARS-69 A. If you treat someone unfairly or with disrespect, you get exactly the same or worse back. (Are you wondering why you are disrespected wherever you go? It may have something to do with not knowing this law, but like any fair and sound judge will tell you: Not knowing the law is not a defense.) Ha ha, its ok, try harder next time buddy.

Yes if you are speeding you can get a ticket, but there are not enough officers to enforce the speed on everyone, remember we are the nations 5th largest city, Phoenix Arizona. There are over 5.5 million people here in the valley. With over two million autos on the freeway throughout the day, how many officers do you think they would need to catch all of the speeders, and probably about 99% of the people speed? The officers come to work every day and they pull people over and give tickets for their whole shift, when they are not taking someone to jail because they had a warrant or some other criminal offense. You probably have a 1 in 25000 chance of being pulled over on any given day. It would be a very rare instance where someone would even get a ticket for impeding the flow of traffic by driving in the fast lane and holding up others, but the law does exist to do so. Michael, you are mentioning ARS title 69, What is that? Just curious? I looked up all of the Sections at http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ArizonaRevisedStatutes.asp and the ARS statutes go from 1 to 49, with traffic being a 28 code. the specific code we are dealing with here is 28-704 A. and it states "A person shall not drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law."

This is to answer the question regarding, "Ok Cops, then what is the speed limit?" I'm definately not trying to be nasty...but have you ever been fishing before? How do you think the fish felt when it was caught? It was just going with the flow too... Besides, if a group of people are going 80 mph in a 65 zone, but theres no cop around, who's going to ticket them? In Arizona, the speed limit is the maximum speed. I haven't seen any minimum speed limit signs in AZ, just California. But yes, the speed limit is the maximum. It doesn't matter if you're in the right lane, middle lane, or 'fast' lane, because one doesn't exist. "Fast lane" is just a common term. On another note... "Now you'll post a reply in Rip Off Report about how you were proven wrong and feel cheated in life for trying to disseminate laws that the general public has no idea exist. One more thing, Read up on ARS-69 A. If you treat someone unfairly or with disrespect, you get exactly the same or worse back. (Are you wondering why you are disrespected wherever you go? It may have something to do with not knowing this law, but like any fair and sound judge will tell you: Not knowing the law is not a defense.)" Let me get this straight. On one hand, you say I am disseminating laws that the general public has no idea exist...but then you say that "like any fair and sound judge will tell you: Not knowing the law is not a defense." I'm very ignorant because I fail to see the point you're trying to prove. Somehow this changed course from a rebuttal regarding a traffic incident into a personal assault. Oh well...have fun with quoting that ARS-69 stuff...

Not trying to be nasty, I'm just curious about something. If the posted speed limit is 65 but the flow of traffic is 80 are none of those people going to get a ticket? I see the whole fast lane slow down a whole bunch "suddenly" when a cop cruises into that area of traffic. That makes me think they are all just trying to go as fast as they think they can get away with until something happens to slow them down. I know several people that got tickets in the fast lane who were "going with the flow of traffic". It seems to me (this is where I would like advice from the cops posters)that the flow of traffic thing is BS. Is the speed limit not the speed limit in the fast lane? I know in Colorado there are signs posting that you must do a minimum mph in the fast lane (where the speed limit is 65 or greater you must do at least 55 in the fast lane or get out, clearly posted every so many feet) but what about the rest of the time? Its not like if I got pulled over (never have been) for say 75 in a 65 I can say "but officer I'm in the fast lane!" So how does this all work? It seems like some kind of selective enforcement?

I am not familiar with the traffic codes in AZ and they're requirements regarding issuing citations in motor vehicle accidents. But here in Ga. If I would have responded to the original posters call I would have issued several tickets just from what both drivers said. Here in Ga, officers issue citations even if we dont witness the act. It is called a "Reported crime" I first would have cited the male driver with "Following too closely" The way our judges out here look at it is if you cant stop your vehicle in time to avoid colliding with a vehicle in front of you, you are following too close. I also would have cited him with a new statute we have which is intended to curb road rage. The charge is called "Aggressive driving". As far as the female in the truck goes, legally, at least here in Ga, she did not do anything wrong. But as far as using common sense, she is guilty. Slower traffic, and I mean traffic which is going slower than the flow, needs to stay to the right. It doesnt matter whether you are going 70 in a 70. If the flow of traffic is doing 80 and you are doing 70 in the left lane, you need to get your tail over. You do not have the right to regulate the speed on the expressway. Just because you are driving at the legal speed, you are a traffic hazard. I have seen too many traffic fatalities, people being ejected and body parts in the roadway because of people doing stupid things. MOVE OVER.. Now, for Greg. I hope you are not serious about thinking its ok to do 50 in the left lane because that is an accident waiting to happen. Why would you do 50 in a lane where other drivers are doing 80?? Why cant you be content driving in the right lane with other drivers going with your flow?? Again, what gives you the right to regulate the left lane traffic??

To the person in the truck, I say you were breaking the law in that, regardless of the speed limit and the fact that you were speeding, slower traffic MUST move to the right and allow faster traffic to pass. The person in the Nissan is also in the wrong because he failed to control his vehicle as required by ARS section 28. Quite frankly, I am surprised that the Nissan driver did not get a ticket for failure to control a vehicle. As was stated, there was damage to the bumper of the truck and damage to to front of the Nissan, but it is entirely discretionary as to how the officer handles it. The Officer is not legally bound by the law to issue a citation, but with damage of over $400.00 he must fill out an accident report.

Sir if you really believe that the fast lane is for those that want to break the law by speeding and not for those using the lane as a straight through then I for one am glad that you are retired. All though you be of age to retire I do wonder what type of test you took to get your License or if you had one? Although I understand that you are allowed to miss a few of the questions. When I took my test it was for an international license and it was explained that the inside lane (fast lane for you policemen) was for people traveling a good distance that will not need to get off the road for awhile. Now if I'm going 50 miles per hour or 70 it really doesn't matter if the guy who wants to go 80 why he can pass me remember there is more that one lane. I know this because a State trooper in the Dessert Highway 10 wrote a ticket for going 70 and did not pull into the other lane for the trooper even though it was a none emergency so when we got to court I won! As a matter of fact the judge said that if he tried me for speeding he would also have to find the trooper speeding because the police have no special Rights when not on a call he was as he stated headed for lunch. I was breaking the law he was breaking the law. Maybe you were one of those police men who when they did not feel like stopping for a red light you turned on your red light and ran it or when it got close to quiting time you turned on your siren so you wouldn't be late to go home running the road at 90 mile per hour to do so. It is you who make us not trust in the the legal system. Greg retired MP 38 years.

Sir if you really believe that the fast lane is for those that want to break the law by speeding and not for those using the lane as a straight through then I for one am glad that you are retired. All though you be of age to retire I do wonder what type of test you took to get your License or if you had one? Although I understand that you are allowed to miss a few of the questions. When I took my test it was for an international license and it was explained that the inside lane (fast lane for you policemen) was for people traveling a good distance that will not need to get off the road for awhile. Now if I'm going 50 miles per hour or 70 it really doesn't matter if the guy who wants to go 80 why he can pass me remember there is more that one lane. I know this because a State trooper in the Dessert Highway 10 wrote a ticket for going 70 and did not pull into the other lane for the trooper even though it was a none emergency so when we got to court I won! As a matter of fact the judge said that if he tried me for speeding he would also have to find the trooper speeding because the police have no special Rights when not on a call he was as he stated headed for lunch. I was breaking the law he was breaking the law. Maybe you were one of those police men who when they did not feel like stopping for a red light you turned on your red light and ran it or when it got close to quiting time you turned on your siren so you wouldn't be late to go home running the road at 90 mile per hour to do so. It is you who make us not trust in the the legal system. Greg retired MP 38 years.

Sir if you really believe that the fast lane is for those that want to break the law by speeding and not for those using the lane as a straight through then I for one am glad that you are retired. All though you be of age to retire I do wonder what type of test you took to get your License or if you had one? Although I understand that you are allowed to miss a few of the questions. When I took my test it was for an international license and it was explained that the inside lane (fast lane for you policemen) was for people traveling a good distance that will not need to get off the road for awhile. Now if I'm going 50 miles per hour or 70 it really doesn't matter if the guy who wants to go 80 why he can pass me remember there is more that one lane. I know this because a State trooper in the Dessert Highway 10 wrote a ticket for going 70 and did not pull into the other lane for the trooper even though it was a none emergency so when we got to court I won! As a matter of fact the judge said that if he tried me for speeding he would also have to find the trooper speeding because the police have no special Rights when not on a call he was as he stated headed for lunch. I was breaking the law he was breaking the law. Maybe you were one of those police men who when they did not feel like stopping for a red light you turned on your red light and ran it or when it got close to quiting time you turned on your siren so you wouldn't be late to go home running the road at 90 mile per hour to do so. It is you who make us not trust in the the legal system. Greg retired MP 38 years.

You are hearing me but you are NOT LISTENING!! Who made the first threatening remark slick? You've just proven my point. Thanks for proving me to be correct once again. Now you'll post a reply in Rip Off Report about how you were proven wrong and feel cheated in life for trying to disseminate laws that the general public has no idea exist. One more thing, Read up on ARS-69 A. If you treat someone unfairly or with disrespect, you get exactly the same or worse back. (Are you wondering why you are disrespected wherever you go? It may have something to do with not knowing this law, but like any fair and sound judge will tell you: Not knowing the law is not a defense.) Ha ha, its ok, try harder next time buddy.

What were you thinking?? I agree with the retired DPS officer. People who think they're vilgilantes by parking themselves in the fast lane need to be told to MOVE OVER. It's that kind of driving that causes multiple rear-end accidents on valley freeways. By tapping your brake lights repeatedly you're just encouraging the moron. Granted you're both wrong in this case, the fact that you provoked his behavior is just as bad. Haven't you ever heard that annoying addage, "two wrongs don't make a right"? I agree with the reply about lane ownership. Since when do YOU own the fast lane? Let's talk about your speeding...last I recall, there isn't any official leeway in controlling the speed of YOUR vehicle (forget his for the moment, since you're the one that complained on a public forum). "I WAS NOT DRIVING SLOW, I WAS DOING 70." 101 speed limit is 65. Apparently you're oblivious to the hazards of driving on the 101 in the first place...no less travelling in the fast lane. ARS 28-701. Reasonable and prudent speed; prima facie evidence; exceptions A. A person shall not drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the circumstances, conditions and actual and potential hazards then existing. A person shall control the speed of a vehicle as necessary to avoid colliding with any object, person, vehicle or other conveyance on, entering or adjacent to the highway in compliance with legal requirements and the duty of all persons to exercise reasonable care for the protection of others. Not to be completely one sided on this, I will post the ARS for following too closely...for everyone else... ARS 28-730. Following too closely A. The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent and shall have due regard for the speed of the vehicles on, the traffic on and the condition of the highway. Thank God you stayed inside the car with your doors and windows locked...that was just about the only smart thing you did throughout this entire ordeal. "THIS GUY STARTS OUT BY SAYING"THIS b***h-------- ----" THIS OFFICER SAID NOTHING TO THIS MAN REGARDING THAT REMARK." There's no law that says you can't swear. Just a lack of class. Again, the traffic officer was correct in not issuing you a ticket. There wasn't anyone that stuck around who witnessed this behavior. A citation like that wouldn't stand up in court because the officer would have written it on here-say. What I don't get is why you tapped your brakes again after you saw the man get infuriated the first time. http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ArizonaRevisedStatutes.asp?Title=28 Read up on ARS 28-693 and 28-695. You both fit into both ARS codes. I want to clarify that I'm not taking a gender-specific stance on this reply. J "rock y ford" - way to show style. "This woman was obviously threatened and maybe assaulted. " forget the fact that she was recklessly tapping her brake lights. In Arizona court, the first person that makes a threatening remark in a dispute is typically the one who is at fault for starting it. "I will humble that son of a b-tch so quick he will never think about doing that to another person." Then you'll post a Rip-off Report about how the cop who arrested you slammed your face to the asphalt for physically disabling someone. Nice.

What were you thinking?? I agree with the retired DPS officer. People who think they're vilgilantes by parking themselves in the fast lane need to be told to MOVE OVER. It's that kind of driving that causes multiple rear-end accidents on valley freeways. By tapping your brake lights repeatedly you're just encouraging the moron. Granted you're both wrong in this case, the fact that you provoked his behavior is just as bad. Haven't you ever heard that annoying addage, "two wrongs don't make a right"? I agree with the reply about lane ownership. Since when do YOU own the fast lane? Let's talk about your speeding...last I recall, there isn't any official leeway in controlling the speed of YOUR vehicle (forget his for the moment, since you're the one that complained on a public forum). "I WAS NOT DRIVING SLOW, I WAS DOING 70." 101 speed limit is 65. Apparently you're oblivious to the hazards of driving on the 101 in the first place...no less travelling in the fast lane. ARS 28-701. Reasonable and prudent speed; prima facie evidence; exceptions A. A person shall not drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the circumstances, conditions and actual and potential hazards then existing. A person shall control the speed of a vehicle as necessary to avoid colliding with any object, person, vehicle or other conveyance on, entering or adjacent to the highway in compliance with legal requirements and the duty of all persons to exercise reasonable care for the protection of others. Not to be completely one sided on this, I will post the ARS for following too closely...for everyone else... ARS 28-730. Following too closely A. The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent and shall have due regard for the speed of the vehicles on, the traffic on and the condition of the highway. Thank God you stayed inside the car with your doors and windows locked...that was just about the only smart thing you did throughout this entire ordeal. "THIS GUY STARTS OUT BY SAYING"THIS b***h-------- ----" THIS OFFICER SAID NOTHING TO THIS MAN REGARDING THAT REMARK." There's no law that says you can't swear. Just a lack of class. Again, the traffic officer was correct in not issuing you a ticket. There wasn't anyone that stuck around who witnessed this behavior. A citation like that wouldn't stand up in court because the officer would have written it on here-say. What I don't get is why you tapped your brakes again after you saw the man get infuriated the first time. http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ArizonaRevisedStatutes.asp?Title=28 Read up on ARS 28-693 and 28-695. You both fit into both ARS codes. I want to clarify that I'm not taking a gender-specific stance on this reply. J "rock y ford" - way to show style. "This woman was obviously threatened and maybe assaulted. " forget the fact that she was recklessly tapping her brake lights. In Arizona court, the first person that makes a threatening remark in a dispute is typically the one who is at fault for starting it. "I will humble that son of a b-tch so quick he will never think about doing that to another person." Then you'll post a Rip-off Report about how the cop who arrested you slammed your face to the asphalt for physically disabling someone. Nice.

What were you thinking?? I agree with the retired DPS officer. People who think they're vilgilantes by parking themselves in the fast lane need to be told to MOVE OVER. It's that kind of driving that causes multiple rear-end accidents on valley freeways. By tapping your brake lights repeatedly you're just encouraging the moron. Granted you're both wrong in this case, the fact that you provoked his behavior is just as bad. Haven't you ever heard that annoying addage, "two wrongs don't make a right"? I agree with the reply about lane ownership. Since when do YOU own the fast lane? Let's talk about your speeding...last I recall, there isn't any official leeway in controlling the speed of YOUR vehicle (forget his for the moment, since you're the one that complained on a public forum). "I WAS NOT DRIVING SLOW, I WAS DOING 70." 101 speed limit is 65. Apparently you're oblivious to the hazards of driving on the 101 in the first place...no less travelling in the fast lane. ARS 28-701. Reasonable and prudent speed; prima facie evidence; exceptions A. A person shall not drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the circumstances, conditions and actual and potential hazards then existing. A person shall control the speed of a vehicle as necessary to avoid colliding with any object, person, vehicle or other conveyance on, entering or adjacent to the highway in compliance with legal requirements and the duty of all persons to exercise reasonable care for the protection of others. Not to be completely one sided on this, I will post the ARS for following too closely...for everyone else... ARS 28-730. Following too closely A. The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent and shall have due regard for the speed of the vehicles on, the traffic on and the condition of the highway. Thank God you stayed inside the car with your doors and windows locked...that was just about the only smart thing you did throughout this entire ordeal. "THIS GUY STARTS OUT BY SAYING"THIS b***h-------- ----" THIS OFFICER SAID NOTHING TO THIS MAN REGARDING THAT REMARK." There's no law that says you can't swear. Just a lack of class. Again, the traffic officer was correct in not issuing you a ticket. There wasn't anyone that stuck around who witnessed this behavior. A citation like that wouldn't stand up in court because the officer would have written it on here-say. What I don't get is why you tapped your brakes again after you saw the man get infuriated the first time. http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ArizonaRevisedStatutes.asp?Title=28 Read up on ARS 28-693 and 28-695. You both fit into both ARS codes. I want to clarify that I'm not taking a gender-specific stance on this reply. J "rock y ford" - way to show style. "This woman was obviously threatened and maybe assaulted. " forget the fact that she was recklessly tapping her brake lights. In Arizona court, the first person that makes a threatening remark in a dispute is typically the one who is at fault for starting it. "I will humble that son of a b-tch so quick he will never think about doing that to another person." Then you'll post a Rip-off Report about how the cop who arrested you slammed your face to the asphalt for physically disabling someone. Nice.

What were you thinking?? I agree with the retired DPS officer. People who think they're vilgilantes by parking themselves in the fast lane need to be told to MOVE OVER. It's that kind of driving that causes multiple rear-end accidents on valley freeways. By tapping your brake lights repeatedly you're just encouraging the moron. Granted you're both wrong in this case, the fact that you provoked his behavior is just as bad. Haven't you ever heard that annoying addage, "two wrongs don't make a right"? I agree with the reply about lane ownership. Since when do YOU own the fast lane? Let's talk about your speeding...last I recall, there isn't any official leeway in controlling the speed of YOUR vehicle (forget his for the moment, since you're the one that complained on a public forum). "I WAS NOT DRIVING SLOW, I WAS DOING 70." 101 speed limit is 65. Apparently you're oblivious to the hazards of driving on the 101 in the first place...no less travelling in the fast lane. ARS 28-701. Reasonable and prudent speed; prima facie evidence; exceptions A. A person shall not drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the circumstances, conditions and actual and potential hazards then existing. A person shall control the speed of a vehicle as necessary to avoid colliding with any object, person, vehicle or other conveyance on, entering or adjacent to the highway in compliance with legal requirements and the duty of all persons to exercise reasonable care for the protection of others. Not to be completely one sided on this, I will post the ARS for following too closely...for everyone else... ARS 28-730. Following too closely A. The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent and shall have due regard for the speed of the vehicles on, the traffic on and the condition of the highway. Thank God you stayed inside the car with your doors and windows locked...that was just about the only smart thing you did throughout this entire ordeal. "THIS GUY STARTS OUT BY SAYING"THIS b***h-------- ----" THIS OFFICER SAID NOTHING TO THIS MAN REGARDING THAT REMARK." There's no law that says you can't swear. Just a lack of class. Again, the traffic officer was correct in not issuing you a ticket. There wasn't anyone that stuck around who witnessed this behavior. A citation like that wouldn't stand up in court because the officer would have written it on here-say. What I don't get is why you tapped your brakes again after you saw the man get infuriated the first time. http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ArizonaRevisedStatutes.asp?Title=28 Read up on ARS 28-693 and 28-695. You both fit into both ARS codes. I want to clarify that I'm not taking a gender-specific stance on this reply. J "rock y ford" - way to show style. "This woman was obviously threatened and maybe assaulted. " forget the fact that she was recklessly tapping her brake lights. In Arizona court, the first person that makes a threatening remark in a dispute is typically the one who is at fault for starting it. "I will humble that son of a b-tch so quick he will never think about doing that to another person." Then you'll post a Rip-off Report about how the cop who arrested you slammed your face to the asphalt for physically disabling someone. Nice.

I have read the rebuttals by current and retired Arizona DPS officers and I am shocked beyond belief we would employ or have employ such officers. Being an Arizona resident would like to appologize for their conduct and all of this should be reported to the highest offical possible at DPS. Who do they think they are? Judges?

Sonny, you belong in the same category as the two a--holes before. This woman was obviously threatened and maybe assaulted. The fact that you are now retired is great because your "don't give a sh-t attitude" is definately not good for public safety. Next time this idiot wants to hassle and threaten someone, I hope he picks me. I will humble that son of a b-tch so quick he will never think about doing that to another person. As far as your ego, we the people of Az. are sure glad you retired. Matter of fact, I would bet most arizonans would double your pension just to keep your ugly mug retired. Don't come back, we need people who give a d**n, and can spell and use correct punctuation. Joe

this is in response to you drivers who insist on driving in the fast lane on the free ways..as a retired dps officer you are one of the most dangerous events happining on our freeways today. we refer to you as driving with your head firmly implanted in your anal cavity..you have a ego that needs to have the snot kicked out of it..one more note..what makes you think we as police officers really care about you..if you or one of your family are killed driving the freways that is just one less rear end we have to deal with..also thank you for paying my nice retirement pension..

this is in response to you drivers who insist on driving in the fast lane on the free ways..as a retired dps officer you are one of the most dangerous events happining on our freeways today. we refer to you as driving with your head firmly implanted in your anal cavity..you have a ego that needs to have the snot kicked out of it..one more note..what makes you think we as police officers really care about you..if you or one of your family are killed driving the freways that is just one less rear end we have to deal with..also thank you for paying my nice retirement pension..

this is in response to you drivers who insist on driving in the fast lane on the free ways..as a retired dps officer you are one of the most dangerous events happining on our freeways today. we refer to you as driving with your head firmly implanted in your anal cavity..you have a ego that needs to have the snot kicked out of it..one more note..what makes you think we as police officers really care about you..if you or one of your family are killed driving the freways that is just one less rear end we have to deal with..also thank you for paying my nice retirement pension..

You 2 @$$holes obviously have a problem with women drivers. This woman was not in the wrong here. The man tailgating here should have been issued a citation for not travelling at a safe distance behind her car. He was tailgating and she has every right to tap the brakes as long as she does not stop on the freeway. Yes she was probably egging this guy on but he had no business doing what he was doing. He should have just passed her. To the woman, I would leave a message for this officer's supervisor and find out why this man was not ticketed. He should have been.

Lady Why didnt you move out of the fast lane and let him pass? Why did you need to provoke him? You were both wrong but you were the idiot for bringing this on yourself! People like you are the reason for road rage with your attitude "its my lane and i am not moving". Why dont you respect the fast lane and get your a*s out of the way. The policeman did nothing wrong because he cannot issue a citation with no witnesses and him not seeing it. And i will bet that you are still being a complete moron in the left lane and you WILL have this happen to you again. Maybe someone will just shoot you next time! MOVE OVER!!!!!!!

They filed the following rebuttal to the above Rip-Off Report: Their email: [email protected] Their name: Stacy Johnson Their relationship to the company: Owner Rebuttal: Let's get the fcats straight here. You were speeding (70 MPH in a 65 zone) and you recklessly hit the brakes because someone wanted you to get out of the fast lane. As far as I can tell you both were breaking the law, and you were the one being a jerk. You obviously provoked the other driver -- you should have gotten into another lane and let him pass. Since both of you were speeding, there is no legal reason for you to complain. Granted, the other individual took it too far but you escalated the situation by CAUSING him to rear-end you. Women Drivers.