A. The sheriff shall be allowed actual and necessary expenses incurred by the sheriff in pursuit of criminals, for transacting all civil or criminal business and for service of all process and notices, and such expenses shall be a county charge, except that the allowable expenses of service of process in civil actions shall be as provided in section 11-445.
B. The board shall, at the first regular meeting in each month, set apart from the expense fund of the county a sum sufficient to pay the estimated traveling and other expenses of the sheriff during the month, which shall be not less than the amount paid for the expenses for the preceding month. The sum so set apart shall thereupon be paid over to the sheriff for the payment of such expenses.
C. At the end of each month the sheriff shall render a full and true account of such expenses, and any balance remaining unexpended shall be paid by the sheriff into the county treasury. If the sum so paid over is insufficient to pay the expenses incurred during the month, the excess shall be allowed and paid as other claims against the county.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
8
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 2009–2025 · leading case:
United States v. Maricopa, 151 F. Supp. 3d 998 (D. Ariz. 2015).
United States v. Maricopa, 151 F. Supp. 3d 998 (D. Ariz. 2015).
· cites it 12× “356 at 10); 2) the United States has failed to show Arpaio and MCSO engage in “assessing, collecting, safekeeping, managing or disbursing the public revenues” such that they would fall under Maricopa County’s supervisory authority pursuant to A.”
Puente Arizona v. Arpaio, 76 F. Supp. 3d 833 (D. Ariz. 2015).
· cites it 2× “Under A.R.S. § 11-444, the local county is responsible for paying the “actual and necessary expenses incurred by the sheriff in pursuit of criminals” as well as additional expenses.”
Ortega Melendres v. Arpaio, 598 F. Supp. 2d 1025 (D. Ariz. 2009).
· cites it 2× “Under A.R.S. § 11-444, actual and necessary expenses of the Sheriff must be allowed and paid by the County.”
United States v. Maricopa Cnty., 915 F. Supp. 2d 1073 (D. Ariz. 2012).
· cites it 2× “Under A.R.S. § 11-444, actual and necessary expenses of the Sheriff must be allowed and paid by the County.”
Sanchez v. Maricopa Cnty. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 5× “Rather, reading § 11-251(1) to confer only oversight powers related to fiscal accountability is more consistent with § 11-444, which obligates sheriffs to render a monthly accounting and provides that most of a sheriff’s “actual and necessary expenses” are “a county charge.”
Sanchez v. Maricopa Cnty. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 3× “It also is consistent with § 11-444, which obligates sheriffs to render a monthly accounting and provides that most of a sheriff’s “actual and necessary expenses” are “a county charge.”
Sanchez v. Maricopa Cnty. (Ariz. 2025).
· cites it 3× “A money judgment entered against a county sheriff due to the negligence of one of his deputies acting within the course and scope of his statutory powers and duties is a county charge and payable consistent with § 11-444. Thus, our decision does not absolve the County from its…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-444(A) — 4 cases
United States v. Maricopa, 151 F. Supp. 3d 998 (D. Ariz. 2015).
“356 at 10); 2) the United States has failed to show Arpaio and MCSO engage in “assessing, collecting, safekeeping, managing or disbursing the public revenues” such that they would fall under Maricopa County’s supervisory authority pursuant to A.”
Sanchez v. Maricopa Cnty. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
“Rather, reading § 11-251(1) to confer only oversight powers related to fiscal accountability is more consistent with § 11-444, which obligates sheriffs to render a monthly accounting and provides that most of a sheriff’s “actual and necessary expenses” are “a county charge.”
Sanchez v. Maricopa Cnty. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
“It also is consistent with § 11-444, which obligates sheriffs to render a monthly accounting and provides that most of a sheriff’s “actual and necessary expenses” are “a county charge.”
Sanchez v. Maricopa Cnty. (Ariz. 2025).
“A money judgment entered against a county sheriff due to the negligence of one of his deputies acting within the course and scope of his statutory powers and duties is a county charge and payable consistent with § 11-444. Thus, our decision does not absolve the County from its…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-444(B) — 1 case
United States v. Maricopa, 151 F. Supp. 3d 998 (D. Ariz. 2015).
“356 at 10); 2) the United States has failed to show Arpaio and MCSO engage in “assessing, collecting, safekeeping, managing or disbursing the public revenues” such that they would fall under Maricopa County’s supervisory authority pursuant to A.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.