A. Subject to subsection B of this section, any person engaged in law enforcement activities shall be compensated for each hour worked in excess of forty hours in one work week, unless otherwise agreed to by the employer and the person engaged in law enforcement activities, at the option of the employer at the following rates:
1. One and one-half times the regular rate at which the person is employed or one and one-half hours of compensatory time off for each hour worked if by the person's job classification overtime compensation is mandated by federal law.
2. If by the person's job classification federal law does not mandate overtime compensation, the person shall receive the regular rate of pay or compensatory leave on an hour for hour basis.
B. If an employee and employer have an agreement pursuant to subsection A of this section regarding the employee's alternate work period and the employee becomes employed in a new position with the employer, the employee may terminate the existing alternate work period agreement.
C. Subsection A of this section does not preempt agreements that supplant, revise or otherwise alter the provisions of this section, including preexisting agreements between the employer and the law enforcement officer or the law enforcement officer's lawful representative association.
D. Any person engaged in probation officer activities shall be compensated for each hour worked in excess of eighty hours in a two week work period at the option of the employer at the following rates:
1. One and one-half times the regular rate at which the person is employed or one and one-half hours of compensatory time off for each hour worked if by the person's job classification overtime compensation is mandated by federal law.
2. If by the person's job classification federal law does not mandate overtime compensation, the person shall receive the regular rate of pay or compensatory leave on an hour for hour basis.
E. Paid leave may be considered hours worked for the purpose of calculating overtime.
F. The director of the department of public safety may establish alternate work periods, in accordance with federal law, for the purpose of determining overtime compensation for those employees of the air rescue section of the department of public safety.
G. Notwithstanding subsection E of this section, an alternate work period established by the director of the department of public safety for the purpose of determining overtime compensation shall not exceed twenty-eight days or one hundred sixty hours.
H. For the purposes of this section:
1. "Person engaged in law enforcement activities":
(a) Means:
(i) A law enforcement officer as defined by section 38-1001.
(ii) A peace officer as defined by section 41-1701.
(iii) Any security personnel responsible for controlling or maintaining custody of inmates in correctional institutions maintained by this state or a county, city or town.
(iv) Any law enforcement personnel under section 41-1714 responsible for directly assisting law enforcement officers in the performance of law enforcement activities.
(b) Does not include any person employed in a bona fide executive or administrative capacity as defined by the employer.
2. "Person engaged in probation officer activities":
(a) Means a probation officer or surveillance officer who is appointed pursuant to section 8-203, 12-251 or 12-259.
(b) Does not include any person employed in a bona fide executive or administrative capacity as defined by the employer.
Notes of Decisions
Clinton Roberts v. State of Arizona, 512 P.3d 1007 (Ariz. 2022).
· cites it 40× “§§ 251–262, into A.R.S. § 23-392 to govern Arizona corrections officers’ claims for overtime compensation for time spent in mandatory pre-shift security screenings.”
Prendergast v. City of Tempe, 691 P.2d 726 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 30× “1982), this court held: [W]e find that the matter of compensation to law enforcement personnel in Arizona is one of statewide concern and we further find that the legislature has appropriated the field by virtue of A.R.S. § 23-392 (Supp.1981). *18 Id. at 211, 650 P.”
Roberts v. State, 483 P.3d 212 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 18× “The Officers allege A.R.S. § 23-392 requires the State to pay them overtime for the mandatory screening time and they seek treble damages under A.”
Pijanowski v. Yuma Cnty., 43 P.3d 208 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 39× “”) § 23-392 (Supp.2001) by paying overtime to its deputies only when they worked more than 171 hours in a 28-day cycle.”
Gilbert v. Cnty. of Mohave, 650 P.2d 511 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982).
· cites it 18× “This appeal concerns the applicability of A.R.S. § 23-392 (Supp.1981) to overtime compensation claimed by former employees of the Mohave County Sheriff’s Department.”
Hahn v. Pima Cnty., 24 P.3d 614 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 4× “Plaintiffs’ complaints also alleged claims under A.R.S. § 23-392, relating to overtime compensation for certain law enforcement activities.”
Hockersmith v. City of Patagonia, 601 P.2d 322 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1979).
· cites it 4× “Hockersmith, former deputy marshal for the City of Patagonia, filed suit against the city for overtime wages under A.R.S. § 23-392. After trial to the court without a jury, he was awarded nominal damages of $1.”
Patton v. Cnty. of Mohave, 741 P.2d 301 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
“Arizona Revised Statutes § 23-392 provides that persons engaged in law enforcement activities must be compensated for each hour worked in excess of forty hours in one week, at either one and one-half the regular hourly rate or one hour compensatory time off.”
Roberts v. State (Ariz. Ct. App. 2026).
· cites it 8× “” The State challenges this predominance ruling, arguing the common question Plaintiffs identify (whether the pre- and post-shift activities are “work” under A.R.S. § 23-392) is not capable of 2 Because Rule 23 is identical to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, federal cases…”
Kavanagh v. City of Phoenix, 87 F. Supp. 2d 958 (D. Ariz. 2000).
· cites it 14× “§ 207 (a)(2), and an Arizona statute which provides overtime compensation for certain law enforcement activities, see A.R.S. § 23-392. Each of the plaintiffs, Robert Kavanagh (“Kavanagh”) and Eric Edwards (“Edwards”), contends that he is entitled to overtime compensation under…”
McKinley v. Town of Fredonia, 695 P.2d 284 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 12× “McKinley contends on appeal that A.R.S. § 23-392 and our decision in Gilbert v.”
Salgado v. Flowers Foods Inc. (D. Ariz. 2023).
· cites it 2× “) Rather, the court determined which provisions of 22 the FLSA were incorporated into A.R.S. § 23-392, where the statute specifically referenced 23 incorporation, providing for additional compensation for certain law enforcement officers 24 “for each hour worked if by the…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-392(A) — 7 cases
Prendergast v. City of Tempe, 691 P.2d 726 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984).
“1982), this court held: [W]e find that the matter of compensation to law enforcement personnel in Arizona is one of statewide concern and we further find that the legislature has appropriated the field by virtue of A.R.S. § 23-392 (Supp.1981). *18 Id. at 211, 650 P.”
Clinton Roberts v. State of Arizona, 512 P.3d 1007 (Ariz. 2022).
“§§ 251–262, into A.R.S. § 23-392 to govern Arizona corrections officers’ claims for overtime compensation for time spent in mandatory pre-shift security screenings.”
Roberts v. State, 483 P.3d 212 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).
“The Officers allege A.R.S. § 23-392 requires the State to pay them overtime for the mandatory screening time and they seek treble damages under A.”
Hahn v. Pima Cnty., 24 P.3d 614 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
“Plaintiffs’ complaints also alleged claims under A.R.S. § 23-392, relating to overtime compensation for certain law enforcement activities.”
Roberts v. State (Ariz. Ct. App. 2026).
“” The State challenges this predominance ruling, arguing the common question Plaintiffs identify (whether the pre- and post-shift activities are “work” under A.R.S. § 23-392) is not capable of 2 Because Rule 23 is identical to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, federal cases…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-392(A)(1) — 1 case
Clinton Roberts v. State of Arizona, 512 P.3d 1007 (Ariz. 2022).
“§§ 251–262, into A.R.S. § 23-392 to govern Arizona corrections officers’ claims for overtime compensation for time spent in mandatory pre-shift security screenings.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-392(A)(2) — 2 cases
Prendergast v. City of Tempe, 691 P.2d 726 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984).
“1982), this court held: [W]e find that the matter of compensation to law enforcement personnel in Arizona is one of statewide concern and we further find that the legislature has appropriated the field by virtue of A.R.S. § 23-392 (Supp.1981). *18 Id. at 211, 650 P.”
Kavanagh v. City of Phoenix, 87 F. Supp. 2d 958 (D. Ariz. 2000).
“§ 207 (a)(2), and an Arizona statute which provides overtime compensation for certain law enforcement activities, see A.R.S. § 23-392. Each of the plaintiffs, Robert Kavanagh (“Kavanagh”) and Eric Edwards (“Edwards”), contends that he is entitled to overtime compensation under…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-392(A)(l) — 1 case
Kavanagh v. City of Phoenix, 87 F. Supp. 2d 958 (D. Ariz. 2000).
“§ 207 (a)(2), and an Arizona statute which provides overtime compensation for certain law enforcement activities, see A.R.S. § 23-392. Each of the plaintiffs, Robert Kavanagh (“Kavanagh”) and Eric Edwards (“Edwards”), contends that he is entitled to overtime compensation under…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-392(B) — 1 case
Kavanagh v. City of Phoenix, 87 F. Supp. 2d 958 (D. Ariz. 2000).
“§ 207 (a)(2), and an Arizona statute which provides overtime compensation for certain law enforcement activities, see A.R.S. § 23-392. Each of the plaintiffs, Robert Kavanagh (“Kavanagh”) and Eric Edwards (“Edwards”), contends that he is entitled to overtime compensation under…”
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.