A. The threatened use of deadly physical force by a person against another is justified pursuant to section 13-409 only if a reasonable person effecting the arrest or preventing the escape would believe the suspect or escapee is:
1. Actually resisting the discharge of a legal duty with deadly physical force or with the apparent capacity to use deadly physical force; or
2. A felon who has escaped from lawful confinement; or
3. A felon who is fleeing from justice or resisting arrest with physical force.
B. The use of deadly physical force by a person other than a peace officer against another is justified pursuant to section 13-409 only if a reasonable person effecting the arrest or preventing the escape would believe the suspect or escapee is actually resisting the discharge of a legal duty with physical force or with the apparent capacity to use deadly physical force.
C. The use of deadly force by a peace officer against another is justified pursuant to section 13-409 only when the peace officer reasonably believes that it is necessary:
1. To defend himself or a third person from what the peace officer reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force.
2. To effect an arrest or prevent the escape from custody of a person whom the peace officer reasonably believes:
(a) Has committed, attempted to commit, is committing or is attempting to commit a felony involving the use or a threatened use of a deadly weapon.
(b) Is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon.
(c) Through past or present conduct of the person which is known by the peace officer that the person is likely to endanger human life or inflict serious bodily injury to another unless apprehended without delay.
(d) Is necessary to lawfully suppress a riot if the person or another person participating in the riot is armed with a deadly weapon.
D. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, a peace officer is justified in threatening to use deadly physical force when and to the extent a reasonable officer believes it necessary to protect himself against another's potential use of physical force or deadly physical force.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
25
cases (
13 in the last 5 years), 1985–2026 · leading case:
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985).
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985).
· cites it 2× “Rev. Stat., ch. 38, ¶ 7-5 (1984); Iowa Code § 804.”
State v. Olsen, 760 P.2d 603 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 8× “A.R.S. § 13-410 limits the use or threatened use of deadly physical force by one to effect the arrest or prevent the escape of another to those situations in which a reasonable person believes the other: (1) is resisting the discharge of a legal duty with deadly physical force…”
Marquez Ex Rel. Marquez v. City of Phoenix, 693 F.3d 1167 (9th Cir. 2012).
· cites it 3× “§ 13 -M09 (providing law enforcement officers with immunity for all reasonable uses of non-deadly force), with Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-410 (requiring an additional showing to immunize the use of deadly force).”
State v. Gendron, 804 P.2d 95 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 6× “Under A.R.S. § 13-410(A), a police officer may threaten deadly force against a felon fleeing from justice or resisting arrest with physical force.”
Leatham v. Yearick (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 10× “They also argued that Arizona’s justification statute, A.R.S. § 13-410, insulated them from liability for wrongful death because their conduct was reasonable as a matter of law.”
Johnson v. State (Ariz. Ct. App. 2026).
· cites it 8× “¶34 In granting summary judgment on Erma’s wrongful death claims against Cervantes, the court found, inter alia, that Cervantes had established a justification defense under A.R.S. §§ 13-410 and -413. Erma asserts that in so holding, the court improperly disregarded “conflicting…”
Torres v. Maricopa (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 6× “¶8 The superior court also found that defendants established by a preponderance of the evidence that the use of deadly force was justified under A.R.S. § 13-410(C) and thus were immune from civil liability for battery under A.”
Guardas v. United States, 600 F. Supp. 2d 1059 (D. Ariz. 2009).
· cites it 2× “Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 13-410(C). 3. The reasonableness of “a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.”
Lisa Yearick v. Robert Leatham (9th Cir. 2023).
· cites it 3× “See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-410 (C)(1) (stating that an officer’s use of deadly 7 force against another is justified when the officer “reasonably believes that it is necessary .”
Sweet v. Mesa, City of (D. Ariz. 2019).
· cites it 2× “6 Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-410 (c). 7 While Defendant Langley is correct that, as a general rule, deadly force warnings 8 are required by law, that does not as an uncontested matter of fact excuse or otherwise 9 justify all of his conduct that may have contributed to Mr.”
Sweet v. Mesa, City of (D. Ariz. 2019).
· cites it 2× “6 Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-410 (c). 7 While Defendant Langley is correct that, as a general rule, deadly force warnings 8 are required by law, that does not as an uncontested matter of fact excuse or otherwise 9 justify all of his conduct that may have contributed to Mr.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-410(A) — 1 case
State v. Gendron, 804 P.2d 95 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).
“Under A.R.S. § 13-410(A), a police officer may threaten deadly force against a felon fleeing from justice or resisting arrest with physical force.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-410(C) — 6 cases
State v. Gendron, 804 P.2d 95 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).
“Under A.R.S. § 13-410(A), a police officer may threaten deadly force against a felon fleeing from justice or resisting arrest with physical force.”
Guardas v. United States, 600 F. Supp. 2d 1059 (D. Ariz. 2009).
“Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 13-410(C). 3. The reasonableness of “a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.”
Leatham v. Yearick (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025).
“They also argued that Arizona’s justification statute, A.R.S. § 13-410, insulated them from liability for wrongful death because their conduct was reasonable as a matter of law.”
Torres v. Maricopa (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024).
“¶8 The superior court also found that defendants established by a preponderance of the evidence that the use of deadly force was justified under A.R.S. § 13-410(C) and thus were immune from civil liability for battery under A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-410(C)(1) — 6 cases
Johnson v. State (Ariz. Ct. App. 2026).
“¶34 In granting summary judgment on Erma’s wrongful death claims against Cervantes, the court found, inter alia, that Cervantes had established a justification defense under A.R.S. §§ 13-410 and -413. Erma asserts that in so holding, the court improperly disregarded “conflicting…”
Torres v. Maricopa (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024).
“¶8 The superior court also found that defendants established by a preponderance of the evidence that the use of deadly force was justified under A.R.S. § 13-410(C) and thus were immune from civil liability for battery under A.”
Leatham v. Yearick (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025).
“They also argued that Arizona’s justification statute, A.R.S. § 13-410, insulated them from liability for wrongful death because their conduct was reasonable as a matter of law.”
Lisa Yearick v. Robert Leatham (9th Cir. 2023).
“See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-410 (C)(1) (stating that an officer’s use of deadly 7 force against another is justified when the officer “reasonably believes that it is necessary .”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-410(D) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-410(c) — 3 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-410(c)(1) — 1 case
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.