Case Law & Resources: Arizona
Citation
Issue Presented & Facts
Whether an officer's justification defense under § 13-409 applies in negligence cases; whether the officer's use of force was justified.
Plaintiff brought a negligence action against an officer for injuries arising from events that occurred when plaintiff was bitten by a K-9 police dog after a police chase. The K-9 continued to bite plaintiff for between 25 and 38 seconds.
Holding
The justification defense does not apply in negligence cases, but the officer in this case may have committed a battery, for "although [an officer's] use of force can be justified at its commencement, it loses legal justification at the point the force becomes unnecessary… here, [officer's] release of [K-9] on [suspect] may have been justified at its inception but leaving [K-9] 'on bite' for a prolonged period could have been an unjustified battery."
​
Reference to Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-409.
An officer shot and killed decedent without warning when the decedent pointed a firearm in the direction of a fight that was occurring outside of a nightclub.
The trial court did not err in its jury instructions. Under state law, there is no requirement "that the use or imminent use of deadly force against which the officer is defending himself or a third person also be unlawful."
Reference to Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-410(C).
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in finding that a police officer did not use excessive force in subduing the defendant.
​
Defendant, who was apparently suicidal, tried to escape officers. Worried that defendant might harm herself or others, the officer subdued defendant by wrapping her arm around defendant's neck, and defendant bit the officer in response.
There was substantial evidence to support the trial court's finding that the officer did not use unlawful excessive force, in contravention of state law, in subduing the defendant. The force employed by officer did not exceed "that which a reasonable person would believe immediately necessary to effect the detention." To set aside a trial court's findings on whether an officer used excessive force, "it must clearly appear that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient evidence to support" the trial court's conclusion.
Reference to Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-409.
Case Law
Resources
Citation
Summary and Notes
In 2019, the Arizona House introduced a bill that would have mandated officer training on interacting with individuals with mental illness, but the bill died in chamber.
Relevant Excerpt
N/A
In June 2020, Arizona House Democrats urged the governor to call a special session to address police reform, specifically whether to mandate de-escalation training, but this never occurred. Anchorage Police Department.
N/A
The curriculum includes training police officers in how to interact with individuals with mental illness.
N/A
AZPOST is reforming officer training programs with new scrutiny on how force is used, and the training changes will be finalized in 2021.
N/A
The Mesa police department recently added a de-escalation policy. Additionally, there is a policy for officers to warn before shooting whenever practical and reasonable.
N/A
The Phoenix police department instructs officers to consider alternatives to the use of force (e.g. de-escalation strategies) and to warn before shooting, if practical.
N/A