Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 13
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3874 (2026)

Indian police; powers; qualifications

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. While engaged in the conduct of his employment any Indian police officer who is appointed by the bureau of Indian affairs or the governing body of an Indian tribe as a law enforcement officer and who meets the qualifications and training standards adopted pursuant to section 41-1822 shall possess and exercise all law enforcement powers of peace officers in this state.

B. Each agency appointing any Indian police officer pursuant to this section shall be liable for any and all acts of such officer acting within the scope of his employment or authority. Neither the state nor any political subdivision shall be liable for any acts or failure to act by any such Indian police officer.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1983–2016 · leading case: State v. Nelson, 90 P.3d 206 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Nelson, 90 P.3d 206 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 15× “She writes, “Due to the ambiguity in A.R.S. § 13-3874, regarding the nature and extent of an Indian police officer’s criminal jurisdiction off the reservation, courts may ascertain the legislative intent by looking to the statutory scheme as a whole, and the statute’s context,…”
Loren Shirk v. United States, 773 F.3d 999 (9th Cir. 2014). · cites it 2× “See Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 13-3874 (A), 41-1823(B).”
State v. Burrola, 669 P.2d 614 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 13-3874. The record does not indicate whether the Indian officers who arrested Burrola were so certified.”
Brown v. robertson/yanpd (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 14× “The court granted YANPD’s motion and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3874(A) — 3 cases
State v. Nelson, 90 P.3d 206 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). “She writes, “Due to the ambiguity in A.R.S. § 13-3874, regarding the nature and extent of an Indian police officer’s criminal jurisdiction off the reservation, courts may ascertain the legislative intent by looking to the statutory scheme as a whole, and the statute’s context,…”
Loren Shirk v. United States, 773 F.3d 999 (9th Cir. 2014). “See Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 13-3874 (A), 41-1823(B).”
Brown v. robertson/yanpd (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). “The court granted YANPD’s motion and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3874(B) — 1 case
Brown v. robertson/yanpd (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). “The court granted YANPD’s motion and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.”
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.