ÃÛÁÄÖ±²¥

A Tucson police officer, Ryder Schrage, pulled Wadsack over on East Speedway on March 15, 2024. The officer said he had followed her and clocked her on his radar going 71 miles an hour in a 35 mph zone.

There was nothing unusual about the stop, attorney for the city Joseph Williams told U.S. District Court Judge Jennifer Zipps in a new court filing Tuesday.

“This instance was a routine traffic procedure, the consequences of which most people would accept,’’ he said.

Williams said the officer’s personal observation provided sufficient probable cause for the stop. That was only cemented, he said, when Wadsack told Schrage she was a legislator and was “racing to get home’’ because the battery in her all-electric Tesla was about to die.

If anything, Williams said, Wadsack did get special treatment: Because she was a legislator, the officer waited until after the end of the legislative session to issue a citation for criminal speeding — the legal classification for driving more than 20 miles over the posted speed limit — and failure to provide proof of car insurance.

That is because the ÃÛÁÄÖ±²¥ Constitution says legislators “shall be privileged from arrests in all cases except treason, felony and breach of the peace’’ starting 15 days ahead of the legislative session and running until lawmakers adjourn for the year.

Wadsack’s case was dismissed in January after she completed a defensive driving course and proved she had the legally required coverage. Then she filed an $8 million suit against the officer and various superiors, claiming the traffic stop and the decision to cite her were part of a conspiracy to silence her politically.

That conspiracy, according to Dennis Wilenchik, her attorney, also included police leaking information about the citation to the media. He said that resulted in her losing her 2024 reelection bid in the Republican primary to Vince Leach in Legislative District 17, which covers portions of eastern and northern Pima County into Pinal County. Leach then went on to win the general election.

Williams, in his filings in federal court, said Wadsack’s claims contain a series of flaws. To start with, he said, Schrage had the legally required probable cause to stop her in the first place.

He cited the officer’s body camera footage in which Wadsack admitted to driving “in a hurry.’’

When Wadsack denied going 70, the officer responded, “Yes, you were. I was behind you. I had my radar on.’’

“Wadsack does not allege that officer Schrage was not behind her,’’ Williams wrote. Even if the radar reading was inaccurate, as Wadsack claimed, Williams said that would be irrelevant.

“Probable cause rests on Schrage’s personal observation of her excessive speed from behind her,’’ he said. “The radar merely quantified the magnitude of her illegal speed.’’

Anyway, Williams said, even Wadsack does not challenge that she did not provide proof of legally required insurance when stopped.

Then there’s Wadsack’s claim that police officers were conspiring against her.

Wilenchik said it was “all part of a plan of members of the Tucson Police Department to act in concert with not yet known city officials to ruin plaintiff’s good reputation because she was introducing legislation these members of TPD felt were adverse to their interests.’’

He said this was because she was investigating Tucson police, was an “outspoken critic’’ of city government, was a member of the conservative Freedom Caucus, and “because she is a woman and her primary opponent was a man who TPD officials felt could be better controlled than the plaintiff.’’

One problem with all of that, Williams said, is that Wadsack’s alleged investigation of the department occurred four months after she was stopped and “right before’’ the citation was finally issued.

“Since the alleged investigation occurred after officer Schrage’s traffic stop, it could not have been the basis for retaliation or falsifying probable cause for the speeding ticket,’’ Williams said.

As to her contention she was denied equal protection as a woman or as a legislator, “Wadsack provides no evidence that plausibly connects any of the defendants’ actions to Wadsack’s sex,’’ he said. Nor, he said, has she shown that others — males or non-legislators — were treated any differently by Tucson police.

He also said anything done by the media, or the voters, was not done under “color of state law’’ that would make them liable.

Beyond that, he said police had no involvement in the Republican primary.

“They did nothing to prohibit Wadsack from being on the ballot or running for election,’’ Williams said.

“TPD’s alleged action of ‘leaking’ information to the press did not cause Wadsack to lose the Republican primary,’’ he said. “Wadsack does not allege that TPD had control over what the press chose to write or publish.’’

And whatever the reaction of voters was “outside the control of TPD,� Williams said.

He also had a response to Wadsack’s claim that she was stopped because she was engaging in constitutionally protected activity by pushing two bills she said city officials did not like.

One would have scrapped voting centers, where anyone can cast a ballot, and instead returned to a system where people could vote only at their local precincts. The other sought a constitutional amendment to wipe out the authority of cities like Tucson to have home rule through their own charters.

Neither measure was approved.

Both are irrelevant to Wadsack’s claim, Williams said. He said courts have ruled that the constitutionally protected First Amendment right of free speech — grounds for a civil rights claim — does not extend to governmental actions such as promoting legislation.

No date has been set for Zipps to consider whether to let the case go to trial.