Rep. Paul Mosley (LD5) pulled over for speeding claims legislative immunity (Tucson: felony, home)

[Bondurant]

News and video of a traffic incident on March 27 involving State Rep. Paul Mosley broke last week. In the video Mosley brags about hitting speeds of 140 mph and then claims he can't be ticketed because he has legislative immunity and was eager to return home to see his family. I am not sure what caused the leak but I am glad this broke.



According to the source article Arizona has a sad history of politicians from both parties claiming immunity because of their office. This isn't even the most egregious but given that Mosley positioned the issue during the traffic stop (and the deputy unfortunately obliged) he has shown he's not fit for office. I hope he has the courtesy to resign (a request I sent by e-mail) and there's more pressure than the canned statements other officials have released.


https://www.azcentral.com/story/news...mph/778706002/

[corydon]

The owner of the company i drove for told me once he was stopped for speeding.
The LEO checked his license and told him to take it a little easy.. He was doing 95 in a 65.
He also spends a lot off money and time on the GOP. I seen Mike Pence once at the company. Surrounded by body guards.
When I do 10 over the limit......

Without corruption this country, like most countries would come to a full stop....

[Adamson865]

I can't get too worked up about it since I haven't knowingly observed a speed limit since I've been in Arizona (unless stuck behind someone). Especially here in Tucson, the speed limits are set quite a bit too low.

[Bondurant]

Originally Posted by Adamson520

I can't get too worked up about it since I haven't knowingly observed a speed limit since I've been in Arizona (unless stuck behind someone). Especially here in Tucson, the speed limits are set quite a bit too low.

To me speeding isn't the issue. It's arguing that he has immunity as an elected official when you or I would be booked for felony speeding in the same scenario. This also shows that speeding laws are revenue generators under the guise of public safety and that laws are for the people, not the lawmakers. That, though, is another issue.

[keninaz]

It's OK, he is after all elected and that makes him special.
String him up!
You ought to legally be able to shoot someone doing 100+ MPH in this state.
Just my thoughts.

[Bummer]

Originally Posted by keninaz

It's OK, he is after all elected and that makes him special.
String him up!
You ought to legally be able to shoot someone doing 100+ MPH in this state.
Just my thoughts.

I could not agree more, KenInAZ . . .

Could we possibly add to your "string 'em up / shoot 'em" list those "special privileged individuals" who choose to clutter our intersections with tacky political signs for months prior to the election?

Not only do these obnoxious signs cheapen our neighborhoods, they are a safety hazard by adding additional driver distractions as well as blocking the view of pedestrians and bicyclists.

[maverick974]

My issue with the signs is not that they are an eyesore, which they are, or that they are a distracting drivers, which they do. My issue is that the people and/or organizations that put these at every street corner are not required to remove them after the election.
These signs end up blowing around and trashing our streets for weeks and months.
I say, clean up after yourself and everyone is happier

[Valley Native]

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news...ion/780400002/

This guy sounds like a real jerk with a capital J, which is putting it mildly! Not only does he think he's above the law regarding speeding, he reportedly butts into people's personal lives and pushes his stupid religion while on the job. If the rest of us pulled that kind of crap on our jobs, we'd be heavily reprimanded or fired for sure. A legislator who refuses to lead by example shouldn't even be in the Legislature, or any public office for that matter.

[DetroitN8V]

Originally Posted by Valley Native

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news...ion/780400002/

This guy sounds like a real jerk with a capital J, which is putting it mildly! Not only does he think he's above the law regarding speeding, he reportedly butts into people's personal lives and pushes his stupid religion while on the job. If the rest of us pulled that kind of crap on our jobs, we'd be heavily reprimanded or fired for sure. A legislator who refuses to lead by example shouldn't even be in the Legislature, or any public office for that matter.

He probably thinks his magic undies will keep him safe, that is if legislative immunity fails. Lock him up!

[Dwatted Wabbit]

Originally Posted by Bondurant

To me speeding isn't the issue. It's arguing that he has immunity as an elected official when you or I would be booked for felony speeding in the same scenario. This also shows that speeding laws are revenue generators under the guise of public safety and that laws are for the people, not the lawmakers. That, though, is another issue.

Check your state laws. It's likely there's a state constitutional provision or law giving legislators immunity during legislative sessions. These laws were typically passed long ago and they evolved from British law for the following reasons:

Legislative speech and debate immunity grew out of centuries of struggle between the English parliament and throne. During the 16th and 17th centuries, some English monarchs sought to intimidate legislators--especially those not sympathetic to the Crown's viewpoints--through legal action. The adoption of the English Bill of Rights in 1689 sharply limited this practice by granting immunity to members against civil or criminal action stemming from the performance of their legislative duties. It provided that “the Freedom of Speech, and Debates or Proceedings in Parliament, ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parliament.”

In America, the constitutions of 43 states provide legislators with a fundamental protection of free speech and debate. This immunity protects legislators from punitive executive or judicial action. The intent is to allow lawmakers to work independently and unimpeded by the threat of intervention from the other branches of government in the discharge of their legislative duties.
Court decisions interpreting the extent of protection afforded by legislative immunity vary. The interpretations have centered on a definition of “legitimate legislative activity.” Such activities extend beyond floor debate and include the act of voting and views expressed in committee deliberations.

The framers of the U.S. Constitution recognized the fundamental necessity of protecting members of Congress from arbitrary arrest. While U.S. Constitution Article I, section 6 placed some restrictions on the police or justice to arrest or detain legislators during a legislative session, its protections did not apply to situations involving "treason, felony or breach of the peace." Most state constitutions contain similar provisions.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/about-s...-immunity.aspx