Key Takeaways:
– Pinal County Attorney Brad Miller wants to investigate Sen. Ortiz for posting ICE locations.
– Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes says Miller has no authority for that probe.
– Miller insists his county authority covers the entire state under state law.
– Legal analyst Barry Markson calls Miller’s request embarrassing and flawed.
Background of the Request
Last week, Brad Miller spoke about Sen. Analise Ortiz on a local radio show. He asked the GOP legislature to appoint him special prosecutor. He said he wanted to investigate Ortiz for sharing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent locations. Miller claims reporting agent locations might lead to crime or hinder law enforcement. However, posting those locations is legal under state law. Still, Miller said he would gather facts to see if a crime occurred.
Attorney General’s Response
Soon after, Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes fired back in a letter. She said Miller had no power to act beyond his county. She reminded him that Pinal County covers rural areas southeast of Phoenix. She noted his campaign vow to fight “extreme leftist ideologies.” She asked why he would target a Democratic senator for exercising free speech rights. She also warned about a possible anti-SLAPP violation under state law. She demanded Miller explain his actions by a set deadline.
Miller’s Reply
Miller then sent his own letter to the attorney general’s office. He cited state statute A.R.S. §11-532 to defend his authority. He argued his power extended across all of Arizona. He said he did not need Mayes’s permission to investigate outside Pinal County. He also claimed that when leadership fails, others must step up. He repeated his offer to assist in any inquiry related to agent locations. He insisted that gathering facts is the core role of any prosecutor.
Legal Expert’s Take
Talk radio host and legal analyst Barry Markson weighed in on social media. He mocked Miller’s letter as “embarrassing” and “self-serving.” He pointed out that even the statute Miller cited limits him to Pinal County. He said Miller’s bid for special prosecutor status made no legal sense. He added that the act might rally some MAGA supporters. Yet he called it “truly pathetic” in the broader legal world.
How State Law Works
Under A.R.S. §11-532, a county attorney’s main role applies to their own county. The law says county attorneys prosecute crimes in their district. They handle misdemeanor cases and some felonies. They also advise local agencies. A special prosecutor covers matters when a conflict of interest arises. However, no clear path lets one county attorney unilaterally claim statewide power. Additionally, anti-SLAPP laws protect free speech on public issues. Targeting a state senator for lawful speech could trigger those protections.
Political Context
Miller’s district leans conservative and covers rural parts near Phoenix. His campaign message stressed law enforcement support and opposition to leftist ideas. Ortiz represents a more urban district in another county. She posted ICE agent locations online to protest immigration enforcement tactics. Her critics say this could endanger officers or hinder patrols. Her supporters call it fair reporting and political speech.
Potential Legislative Role
Miller wants the GOP-controlled legislature to approve his special prosecutor role. The legislature could draft a bill or resolution to grant him that status. Yet several lawmakers may view his bid as politically charged. Some may worry about setting a precedent for cross-county probes. Others might see it as a partisan attack on a fellow Republican turned Democrat. Either way, it could face legal challenges if passed.
What’s Next for Ortiz
Senator Ortiz has not publicly responded yet. She may file a complaint or ask a court to block any investigation. Her allies could seek an anti-SLAPP injunction to stop Miller’s effort. They might argue his actions chill free speech and violate state law. Meanwhile, federal law also protects lawful publication of public official locations, unless tied to criminal conduct.
Wider Implications
This clash shows tension between political messaging and legal boundaries. It raises questions about county attorneys’ power limits. It also highlights how state law interacts with First Amendment rights. Observers will watch if other local prosecutors try similar moves. They will also see if the legislature changes laws to prevent cross-county actions. The dispute could shape Arizona’s legal landscape for years.
Conclusion
In the coming days, both sides may take more steps. Miller could introduce a formal request to the legislature. Mayes might refer the matter to a commission or file a court motion. Ortiz and her team may defend her speech in court. All parties now face public scrutiny over law, politics, and free expression. This story remains active, and more developments will follow.