Do the companies that run red-light and speed cameras for Arizona cities have to be licensed as private investigators?

Plain-English summary

Many Arizona cities have hired outside contractors (Redflex, ATS, and similar) to operate the cameras at red-light and speed-enforcement intersections. The contractors set up the cameras, capture the images, process the data, identify candidate violations, and hand the resulting evidence to the city or to DPS for citation issuance.

Arizona's private investigator licensing law (A.R.S. §§ 32-2401 to -2462) makes it a class 1 misdemeanor to act as a private investigator without a license. The statutory definition at § 32-2401(16)(b) includes anyone who, for consideration, engages in business to "secure evidence to be used . . . in the trial of civil or criminal cases and the preparation therefore."

In 2010, the AG issued Opinion I10-001, concluding that DPS photo-enforcement vendors did NOT need PI licenses. The reasoning relied on the policy purpose of PI licensing (protecting the public from "unscrupulous and unqualified" investigators) and concluded that the public was already protected through the DPS contracting process.

Representative Sonny Borrelli asked AG Brnovich to revisit that 2010 conclusion.

AG Brnovich did, and he overruled it. The new opinion (I16-002) concludes that photo-enforcement contractors do need PI licenses. The reasoning rests on three legs.

First, the plain text of § 32-2401(16)(b) covers them. Photo enforcement systems exist "for the purpose of identifying violators" of articles 3 and 6 of Title 28, which set out traffic violations carrying civil and criminal penalties. Operating those systems for compensation is "secur[ing] evidence to be used . . . in the trial of civil or criminal cases."

Second, the legislature provided eleven specific exemptions from PI licensing in § 32-2409 (government employees, attorneys, news media, collection agencies, insurance adjusters, process servers, etc.). Photo-enforcement vendors are not on that list. Under expressio unius est exclusio alterius, the absence of an exemption is treated as deliberate.

Third, the 2010 opinion's reasoning was flawed. It "jumped to the 'purpose'" of the licensing statute without doing the textual analysis. The plain language only yields to purpose-based interpretation when the plain meaning would lead to "impossible or absurd results." Requiring photo-enforcement vendors to comply with PI licensing is neither impossible (the requirements are reasonable and met by many other industries) nor absurd. The legislature could have created a public-contracting carve-out, but didn't, and the AG cannot create one through purposivism.

This opinion is one of the rare cases where an Arizona AG explicitly overrules a prior AG opinion. The basis is straightforward: the prior opinion was textually wrong.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2016. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Background and statutory framework

Arizona's private investigator licensing scheme (A.R.S. §§ 32-2401 to -2462) is administered by DPS. The basic framework:

• Agencies must be licensed under § 32-2422.
• Individual employees who perform PI work must be registered under § 32-2441.
• § 32-2411 makes it a class 1 misdemeanor to act as a PI without license/registration.

Section 32-2401(16) defines "private investigator" broadly:

• (a)(i) Investigations to obtain information regarding "[c]rime or wrongs done or threatened against the United States or any state or territory of the United States."
• (b) Securing evidence "to be used before investigating committees or boards of award or arbitration or in the trial of civil or criminal cases and the preparation therefore."

The opinion finds it unnecessary to decide whether photo-enforcement work falls under (a)(i) because (b) clearly covers it.

The Landi v. Arkules case (App. 1992) is the leading Arizona authority on PI licensing scope. In Landi, the court held that "heir locator" services (people hired to find heirs of decedents) were PI work and unenforceable when performed without a license. The court grounded the decision in public policy: protecting "the public from unscrupulous and unqualified investigators."

The 2010 AG opinion (I10-001) extracted this public policy and concluded that government contracting already protected the public, so PI licensing wasn't needed for vendors operating photo systems for DPS. The 2016 opinion responds that this misuses purposivism. Plain-text application is the default; purpose only enters when the text would otherwise produce an impossible or absurd result.

Common questions

Q: I'm a Redflex/ATS/Verra Mobility employee in Arizona. Do I need a PI registration?
A: Under this opinion, yes, if your work involves securing evidence (image capture, citation processing, court testimony). Read § 32-2460 for any limited exceptions for employees not engaged in PI services.

Q: Can the city continue to use photo enforcement?
A: Yes. The opinion does not invalidate photo enforcement, just clarifies that the vendor must be PI-licensed.

Q: What if I got a photo-enforcement ticket and the vendor wasn't licensed?
A: This opinion is not a court holding, and it does not specify what an unlicensed vendor's status means for individual citations. Defendants in photo-enforcement cases sometimes raise PI-licensing arguments; the outcome depends on the procedural and statutory context. Consult counsel for your case.

Q: Did this opinion change anything for the vendors?
A: It put them on notice that they need to be licensed. Many large photo-enforcement vendors hold PI licenses in multiple states, but this opinion made clear Arizona was one of them.

Q: What about other government contractors who collect evidence?
A: The same logic applies. If a contractor for compensation gathers evidence for civil or criminal proceedings, the contractor needs a PI license unless one of § 32-2409's eleven exemptions applies.

Citations and references

Statutes:

• A.R.S. § 28-601(14) (photo enforcement system definition)
• A.R.S. §§ 28-1201 to -1206 (photo enforcement statutes)
• A.R.S. §§ 32-2401 to -2462 (private investigator licensing)
• A.R.S. § 32-2401(16) (PI definition)
• A.R.S. § 32-2409 (exemptions)
• A.R.S. § 32-2411 (criminal penalty)
• A.R.S. §§ 32-2422, 2423, 2441, 2442, 2460 (license requirements)

Cases:

• State v. Williams, 175 Ariz. 98 (1993)
• Bilke v. State, 206 Ariz. 462 (2003)
• Pima County v. Heinfeld, 134 Ariz. 133 (1982)
• Landi v. Arkules, 172 Ariz. 126 (App. 1992)
• Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004)

Earlier AG opinions (overruled):

• Ariz. Att'y Gen. Op. I10-001 (overruled by this opinion)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.azag.gov/opinions/i16-002-r16-003
• Original PDF: https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/I16-002.pdf

Original opinion text

To:

Sonny Borrelli

Arizona State Representative

Questions Presented

"Are third-party contractors who operate photo enforcement systems required to be licensed as private investigators under Arizona Revised Statute § 32-2401(16), either under subsection (a)(i) because they engage in the business of making an investigation for the purpose of obtaining information with reference to a crime or wrong done against the state, or under subsection (b) because they secure evidence to be used in the trial of civil or criminal cases and the preparation therefore?"

Summary Answer

Third-party contractors who operate photo enforcement systems in Arizona are subject to the private investigator licensing requirements in Arizona Revised Statute ("A.R.S.") §§ 32-2401 to -2462. In so concluding, this Opinion overrules Arizona Attorney General Opinion No. I10‑001, which is to the contrary.

Background

Arizona's statutes permitting municipalities to use photo enforcement systems are set forth in A.R.S. §§ 28-1201 to -1206. Under these statutes, a "photo enforcement system" is defined as:

[A] device substantially consisting of a radar unit or sensor linked to a camera or other recording device that produces one or more photographs, microphotographs, videotapes or digital or other recorded images of a vehicle's license plate for the purpose of identifying violators of articles 3 and 6 of this chapter.

A.R.S. §§ 28-601(14), -1201. As recounted in the request for this Opinion, a photo enforcement system "is not necessarily operated by law enforcement officers. In at least some instances it is operated by third party contractors who furnish the digitally recorded information to the municipality. In turn, the municipality uses the information as the evidentiary foundation for traffic citations."

Arizona's statutes governing the licensing of private investigators are set forth in A.R.S. §§ 32-2401 to -2462. Under these statutes, it is a class 1 misdemeanor for a person knowingly to act as a private investigator unless the person is registered as a private investigator and is acting within the scope of the person's employment for an agency that is licensed to conduct the business of private investigations in the State. A.R.S. § 32-2411. A "private investigator" is defined in A.R.S. § 32-2401(16), which provides in part:

"Private investigator" means a person other than an insurance adjuster or an on-duty peace officer as defined in § 1-215 who, for any consideration, engages in business or accepts employment to:

(a) Furnish, agree to make or make any investigation for the purpose of obtaining information with reference to:

(i) Crime or wrongs done or threatened against the United States or any state or territory of the United States.

. . .

(b) Secure evidence to be used before investigating committees or boards of award or arbitration or in the trial of civil or criminal cases and the preparation therefore.

The private investigator licensing statutes specifically exempt eleven categories of persons from its licensing requirements. See A.R.S. § 32-2409(1)–(11). For example, government employees, consumer reporting agencies, practicing attorneys, collection agencies, insurance adjusters, news media, and private process servers, among others, may not be required to register as a private investigator. Id. Photo enforcement system contractors, however, are not identified in the list of persons exempted from the private investigator licensing requirements. See id.

Analysis

Principles of statutory interpretation guide our analysis into whether third-party contractors who operate photo enforcement systems in Arizona are subject to the private investigator licensing requirements in A.R.S. §§ 32-2401 to -2462. "Our task in interpreting the meaning of a statute is to fulfill the intent of the legislature that wrote it." State v. Williams, 175 Ariz. 98, 100 (1993). "In determining the legislature's intent, we initially look to the language of the statute itself." Bilke v. State, 206 Ariz. 462, 464 ¶ 11 (2003). "If the language is clear, [we] must apply it without resorting to other methods of statutory interpretation, unless application of the plain meaning would lead to impossible or absurd results." Id. (internal quotations and citation omitted).

A. The Plain Language of the Statute

A third party which contracts to operate a photo enforcement system in the State clearly falls within the definition of "private investigator" under A.R.S. § 32-2401(16)(b). By definition, persons who contract to operate a photo enforcement system engage in a business to "[s]ecure evidence to be used . . . in the trial of civil or criminal cases and the preparation therefore." Id. Again, a "photo enforcement system" is a device which captures certain information, expressly "for the purpose of identifying violators of articles 3 and 6 of this chapter." A.R.S. §§ 28-601(14), -1201. Articles 3 and 6 of the relevant chapter concern various traffic violations, including violations for running a red light and exceeding the posted speed limit, which may give rise to civil or criminal penalties. See A.R.S. §§ 28-641 to -28-654 (Article 3 concerning various traffic violations); A.R.S. §§ 28-701 to -710 (Article 6 concerning speed restrictions).

Under any fair reading of the statute, collecting information "for the purpose of identifying violators of" traffic laws constitutes securing "evidence to be used . . . in the trial of civil or criminal cases and the preparation therefore." Because persons who contract to operate a photo enforcement system in the State clearly fall within the plain meaning of A.R.S. § 32‑2401(16)(b), this Opinion does not address whether such contractors separately qualify as private investigators under A.R.S. § 32-2401(16)(a)(i).

B. The Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius Canon of Statutory Construction

This interpretation, that photo enforcement system contractors must comply with private investigator licensing laws, is also reinforced by the fact that photo enforcement system contractors are not exempted from Arizona's private investigator licensing requirements. See A.R.S. § 32-2409. "A well established rule of statutory construction provides that the expression of one or more items of a class indicates an intent to exclude all items of the same class which are not expressed." Pima County v. Heinfeld, 134 Ariz. 133, 134 (1982). Applying this rule here, the expression of eleven separate categories of exemptions from the private investigator licensing requirements implies an intent not to exempt other persons, including photo enforcement system contractors. See id. ("[T]he expression of specific exceptions to the confidentiality requirement of § 38–431.03(B) for some persons implies an intent not to except other persons, including the Auditor General.").

C. Arizona Attorney General Opinion No. I10-001

Despite the plain language of the licensing statute, Arizona Attorney General Opinion No. I10-001 concluded that "[a] vendor contracting with the Department of Public Safety ('DPS') to provide a state-photo enforcement system is not required to meet the private investigator licensing requirements of Title 32, Chapter 24." In reaching this conclusion, Opinion No. I10-001 did not engage in any analysis of the language of the statute itself.

Instead, Opinion No. I10-001 simply jumped to the "purpose" of regulating private investigators, as articulated in Landi v. Arkules, 172 Ariz. 126, 135 (App. 1992). In Landi, the Arizona court of appeals held that the defendants, who contracted to provide heir locating services, were required to be licensed as private investigators. Id. at 134. Because they were not properly licensed, the court also refused to enforce the defendants' contract to perform heir locating services. Id. at 135. The court reasoned that doing so would violate the public policy behind Arizona's private investigator licensing requirements, which policy was to protect "the public from unscrupulous and unqualified investigators." Id. at 135. From this public policy, Opinion No. I10-001 reasoned:

Unlike in Landi, which involved a private service which any member of the public may hire, a photo-enforcement system vendor does not provide a private service and is not available to the public to hire. Issuing traffic citations is a state function, and the Legislature enacted A.R.S. § 41-1722 allowing the vendor to issue citations on behalf of the state. Under the statutes governing photo enforcement, the regulation and oversight through the contracting process with DPS protects the public, separate and apart from the private investigator licensing statutes.

This analysis is flawed. The plain language of a statute may not be disregarded "unless application of the plain meaning would lead to impossible or absurd results." Bilke, 206 Ariz. at 464 ¶ 11. Applying the plain language of A.R.S. § 32-2401(16) to require photo enforcement system contractors to comply with private investigator licensing requirements hardly leads to "impossible or absurd results." Arizona's basic private investigator licensing laws certainly would not make it "impossible" for photo enforcement system contractors to qualify for a private investigator agency license or for employees of such contractors who are engaged in private investigator activities to register as a private investigator employee. See, e.g.,A.R.S. §§ 32-2422 (applicant for an agency license must, among other things, be at least 21 years of age, must be a citizen or legal resident of the United States authorized to seek employment in the United States, must not have been convicted of or indicted for certain criminal conduct, and have at least three years of investigative experience), -2423 (agency license application, fee, surety bond, and worker's compensation proof), -2441 (applicant for employee registration must, among other things, be at least 18 years of age, must be a citizen or legal resident of the United States authorized to seek employment in the United States, and must not have been convicted of or indicted for certain criminal conduct), -2442 (employee registration application and fee), -2460 (registration not required for employees who do not engage in private investigator services).

There is also nothing inherently "absurd" about requiring licensing compliance from private investigators that perform public functions that are subject to a government contracting process. To be sure, public protection was a purpose of the Arizona legislature in enacting licensing requirements for private investigators. But the statute itself reflects a judgment by the legislature, not only about the desirability of protecting the public, but also about how best to protect the public when persons engage in private investigator activities. Cf. Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 61 (2004) ("The [Confrontation] Clause thus reflects a judgment, not only about the desirability of reliable evidence (a point on which there could be little dissent), but about how reliability can best be determined.") (Scalia, J.). The method for assessing whether the public is protected set forth in Opinion No. I10-001, namely, whether the government is involved in the contracting process, may not replace the method for protecting the public from unscrupulous and unqualified private investigators prescribed by the legislature.

Conclusion

Third-party contractors who operate photo enforcement systems in Arizona are subject to the private investigator licensing requirements in A.R.S. §§ 32-2401 to -2462. This conclusion is compelled by the plain language of A.R.S. § 32-2401(16)(b). For this reason, this Opinion overrules Arizona Attorney General Opinion No. I10-001, which was not based on and is contrary to the text of Arizona's licensing statutes.

Mark Brnovich

Attorney General