Tribune file photo

I respect the opposition of Rep. Sam Crump, R-Anthem, to photo enforcement in Arizona. Or at least I did. But the news conference he held Thursday to promise he would continue fighting to abolish speed cameras was comical, if not downright idiotic. Crump rushed before the microphones to explain why he’s not deterred by the arrest a day earlier of Brett Mecum, executive director of the Arizona Republican Party. The state Department of Public Safety claims Mecum was snapped by a speed camera driving 109 mph on a West Valley freeway.

Crump argued Mecum’s arrest actually proves why speed cameras should be banned, because Mecum (or whoever was driving the car) might have had a great reason for driving so fast. If a DPS trooper had pulled the motorist over instead, that person could have explained the need for speed and the kindly officer would sent him on his way. Crump claims that because a photo camera captures a single moment in time and is presented after the fact, the motorist loses any opportunity to justify his actions. Crump compared the camera’s photos to a “summary execution.”

My God, there’s so many ways to dissect what’s wrong with Crump’s position. Let me try to simplify:

• If a DPS officer had pulled over the speeding car, it would have ruined any “great” reason the driver had for traveling 109 mph. Getting stopped by a patrol officer can delay a motorist by 10 minutes or more. At least with photo enforcement, the driver had no disruptions in reaching his destination and could face the consequences later.
• Possibly anticipating this counter-argument, Crump described one scenario in which a driver has to drive so fast because another motorist suffering from “road rage” is firing a gun. As we all know, modern cars allow us to move faster than a speeding bullet.
• A speed camera doesn’t “execute” or convict anyone. It supplies visual evidence of a traffic violation or crime, which is then reviewed by a police officer or traffic expert before a ticket is issued or an arrest made. Furthermore, the evidence also must convince a judge and, in this case, potentially a jury as well.
• Crump apparently forgot DPS speed cameras also record video 24 hours a day. I’m personally opposed to this part of DPS program. But it certainly undermines Crump’s claim that only a single snapshot taken out of context is used to convict criminal speedsters.
• Crump’s entire explanation assumes that if the speed camera program didn’t exist, a DPS patrol officer would have been there to catch someone driving 109 mph. But odds are good no one would have been there. Photo enforcement has grown in popularity among law enforcement agencies because they simply can’t hire enough patrol officers to reach all of the streets and highways around the clock. The state faces a $3 billion budget deficit. It ain’t hiring anyone to replace speed cameras if they are banned.

What should Crump have said? Well, he could have used Maricopa County Andrew Thomas’ legal conclusion that law enforcement can’t rely solely on speed camera photos to convict anyone. Crump also could have reminded people of the contention by other speed camera opponents that constitutional rights are more important than the most effective law enforcement possible, or that speed cameras might be more dangerous than helpful on balance.

Instead, Crump made speed camera opponents look foolish with this crazy explanation.