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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-402 (2026)

Justification; execution of public duty

✓ text as last checked Oct. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
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× “se of physical force in defense of premises”); -408 (“Justification; use of physical force in defense of property”); -409 (“Justification; use of physical force in law enforcement”); -410 (“Justification; use of deadly physical force in law enforcement”); -411 (“Justification;…”
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× “561, 567, ¶ 19 (2005) (stating that fundamental error review should not encourage a defendant to “tak[e] his chances on a favorable verdict, reserving the hole card of a later appeal on a matter that was curable at trial, and then seek[] appellate reversal”) (cleaned up).”
State v. Kemp, No. 1 CA-CV 21-0190 (Ariz. Ct. App. Mar. 28, 2023). · cites it 16× “§ 13-402 was fundamental error”; and (3) “[w]hether the State met its burden, if any, to prove that Kemp’s conduct was not justified pursuant to A.”
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, No. 4:17-cv-00186, 2019 WL 4849612 (D. Ariz. Sept. 30, 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, No. 4:10-cv-00649 (D. Ariz. Feb. 18, 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, No. 2 CA-CR 2003-0267 (Ariz. Ct. App. Feb. 14, 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, No. 2:19-cv-02827 (D. Ariz. Sept. 8, 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 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. 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, No. 1 CA-CV 21-0190 (Ariz. Ct. App. Mar. 28, 2023). “§ 13-402 was fundamental error”; and (3) “[w]hether the State met its burden, if any, to prove that Kemp’s conduct was not justified pursuant to A.”
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 v. Kemp, No. 1 CA-CV 21-0190 (Ariz. Ct. App. Mar. 28, 2023). “§ 13-402 was fundamental error”; and (3) “[w]hether the State met its burden, if any, to prove that Kemp’s conduct was not justified pursuant to A.”
State of Arizona v. Stanley Thomas Tyszkiewicz, No. 2 CA-CR 2003-0267 (Ariz. Ct. App. Feb. 14, 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.