Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-402 (2026)

Justification; execution of public duty

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. Unless inconsistent with the other sections of this chapter defining justifiable use of physical force or deadly physical force or with some other superseding provision of law, conduct which would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable when it is required or authorized by law.

B. The justification afforded by subsection A also applies if:

1. A reasonable person would believe such conduct is required or authorized by the judgment or direction of a competent court or tribunal or in the lawful execution of legal process, notwithstanding lack of jurisdiction of the court or defect in the legal process; or

2. A reasonable person would believe such conduct is required or authorized to assist a peace officer in the performance of such officer's duties, notwithstanding that the officer exceeded the officer's legal authority.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1970–2024 · leading case: State v. Perry, 610 So. 2d 746 (La. 1992).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Perry, 610 So. 2d 746 (La. 1992). “Code § 15-16-23 (1982); Ariz. Rev.Stat.Ann. § 13-402 (1982); Ark.”

State v. Brown, 556 P.3d 776 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 2× “3(b) (requiring timely objections “to the court’s giving or failing to give any 2 See A.R.S. § 13-402 (“Justification; execution of public duty”); -403 (“Justification; use of physical force”); -404 (“Justification; self-defense”); - 405 (“Justification; use of deadly physical…”

State Ex Rel. Ariz. St. Bd. of P. & P. v. Superior Court of Maricopa Cnty., 467 P.2d 917 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1970). · cites it 2× “§ 31 — 443, it is the exclusive power of the Board to pass upon and recommend such and they may not be granted by the Governor unless first so recommended by the Board, A.R.S. § 13-402, subsec. A.” 92 Ariz. at page 318 , 376 P.”

State v. Tyszkiewicz, 104 P.3d 188 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “Although A.R.S. § 13-402(B)(2) provides an affirmative defense to defendants who maintain that they reasonably believed that their illegal actions were authorized to assist officers in the performance of their duties, Tyszkiewicz did not raise that defense at trial.”

State of Arizona v. Amiel Proto, 58 P.3d 33 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). “The state has failed to rebut the presumption that § 13-402(A) is constitutional. Conclusion ¶ 18 We grant the state partial relief and vacate that portion of the respondent judge’s order granting Proto’s motion to compel a witness interview of N.”

State v. Jones, 559 P.3d 1112 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 2× “By 5 See A.R.S. §§ 13-402 (“Justification; execution of public duty”); -403 (“Justification; use of physical force”); -404 (“Justification; self-defense”); -405 (“Justification; use of deadly physical force”); -406 (“Justification; defense of a third person”); -407…”

State v. Kemp (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 16× “¶2 After reviewing the record, we requested Penson1 briefing on three issues: (1) “[w]hether the exclusion of testimony about police officers’ out-of-court statements regarding the alleged verbal agreement was reversible error”; (2) “[w]hether the trial court’s failure to…”

State v. Haney, 219 P.3d 274 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 4× “[6] ¶ 18 A.R.S. § 13-402(A) provides: "Unless inconsistent with the other sections of this chapter defining justifiable use of physical force or deadly physical force or with some other superseding provision of law, conduct which would otherwise constitute an offense is…”

Par. v. Lansdale (D. Ariz. 2019). · cites it 2× “These defenses require that Defendants’ 11 25 In pertinent part, A.R.S. § 13-402 concerns justification in the use of physical force by 12 “[a] reasonable person [who] believe[s] such conduct is required or authorized to assist a peace officer in the performance of such…”

Brubaker v. Tucson, City of (D. Ariz. 2020). · cites it 2× “7 PACC officers were authorized to enter the property under A.R.S. § 13-402, as well as 8 common law privilege, in “reliance on warrants and representations that are fair on their 9 face.”

State of Arizona v. Stanley Thomas Tyszkiewicz (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “Although A.R.S. § 13-402(B)(2) provides an affirmative defense to defendants who maintain that they reasonably believed that their illegal actions were authorized to assist officers in the performance of their duties, Tyszkiewicz did not raise that defense at trial.”

Johnson v. Mesa, City of (D. Ariz. 2021). “Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 20 Plaintiff moves for summary judgment as to Defendants’ affirmative defenses of 21 federal qualified immunity; the state law justification defense under Arizona Revised 22 Statutes § 13-402; the state law intoxication and…”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-402(A) — 3 cases

State v. Haney, 219 P.3d 274 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). “[6] ¶ 18 A.R.S. § 13-402(A) provides: "Unless inconsistent with the other sections of this chapter defining justifiable use of physical force or deadly physical force or with some other superseding provision of law, conduct which would otherwise constitute an offense is…”

State v. Kemp (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023). “¶2 After reviewing the record, we requested Penson1 briefing on three issues: (1) “[w]hether the exclusion of testimony about police officers’ out-of-court statements regarding the alleged verbal agreement was reversible error”; (2) “[w]hether the trial court’s failure to…”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-402(B)(2) — 3 cases

State v. Tyszkiewicz, 104 P.3d 188 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005). “Although A.R.S. § 13-402(B)(2) provides an affirmative defense to defendants who maintain that they reasonably believed that their illegal actions were authorized to assist officers in the performance of their duties, Tyszkiewicz did not raise that defense at trial.”

State of Arizona v. Stanley Thomas Tyszkiewicz (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005). “Although A.R.S. § 13-402(B)(2) provides an affirmative defense to defendants who maintain that they reasonably believed that their illegal actions were authorized to assist officers in the performance of their duties, Tyszkiewicz did not raise that defense at trial.”

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.