Senator Bundgaard’s Breach of the Peace

by Michael Bryan

Following the Bundgaard domestic violence allegations in the media, and having reviewed the police report, one aspect of this incident confuses me: why was Bundagaard released pursuant to legislative immunity?

The Arizona Constitution provides for legislative immunity from arrest for state lawmakers "except treason, felony, and breach of the peace." According to the police report, the arresting officer released Bundgaard pursuant to legislative immunity.

That makes no sense. I haven't found any specific judicial interpretation of that clause, but generally Arizona law recognizes domestic violence as a breach of the peace for other purposes, such as citizen's arrest. I do know that the Tucson Police Department General Orders suggests that domestic violence is a "breach of the peace" that does not qualify for legislative immunity.

If TPD General Orders inform officers that they should NOT grant legislative immunity from arrest in cases of domestic violence, why did the Phoenix PD legal advisor tell the arresting officer to let him go because of legislative immunity? I am unable to locate the equivalent of Phoenix PD's general orders, but I question whether the advice given to the officer was legally correct.

Domestic violence, especially on a public street, is clearly a "breach of the peace" that should not qualify for legislative privilege from arrest. Legislators should not get to beat a person in public and then claim legislative immunity: that is neither the clear language of our Constitution, nor the intent of the privilege.

Senator Bundgaard reportedly told CNN "I waive any and all 'immunity.' If I did something wrong, charge me." He seems to have changed his tune since the night he was detained. His waiver should be taken at face value.