Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 28
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-622.01 (2026)

Unlawful flight from pursuing law enforcement vehicle; violation; classification; marked and unmarked vehicles

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

A driver of a motor vehicle who wilfully flees or attempts to elude a pursuing official law enforcement vehicle is guilty of a class 5 felony if the law enforcement vehicle is either:

1. Being operated in the manner described in section 28-624, subsection C and is appropriately marked to show that it is an official law enforcement vehicle.

2. Unmarked and either of the following applies:

(a) The driver admits to knowing that the vehicle was an official law enforcement vehicle.

(b) Evidence shows that the driver knew that the vehicle was an official law enforcement vehicle.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 48 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case: State v. Nelson, 705 P.2d 486 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Nelson, 705 P.2d 486 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 20× “Appellant Robert Wells Nelson (defendant) was found guilty by a jury of unlawful flight from a pursuing law enforcement vehicle, in violation of A.R.S. § 28-622.01 and driving while intoxicated (DWI), in violation of A.”
State v. Womack, 847 P.2d 609 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 8× “Defendant's conduct of fleeing from the officer was appropriately and adequately prohibited by A.R.S. § 28-622.01, flight from a pursuing law enforcement vehicle.”
State v. Martinez, 284 P.3d 893 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 9× “1985), held that A.R.S. § 28-622.01 requires proof that a pursuing law enforcement vehicle “was being operated with” emergency lights, this statement is dicta, and overlooks “the exception in § 28-624(C) for police vehicles vis-a-vis the emergency lights requirement.”
In re Joel R., 29 P.3d 287 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 13× “On appeal he claims an essential element of the charge against him was lacking because the sheriffs vehicle that pursued him did not have its siren activated, as he claims A.R.S. §§ 28-622.01 and 28-624(C) require.”
State v. Hernandez, 399 P.3d 115 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 9× “¶ 15 The state argues “it is irrelevant that [Hernandez] was not subject to arrest for the civil traffic violation because, by the time [the] deputies followed [Hernandez] into the backyard, they had probable cause to arrest him for a felony offense,” citing A.R.S. § 28-622.01.…”
State v. FIIHR, 211 P.3d 13 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 9× “¶ 1 After a jury trial held in his absence, William John Fiihr was convicted of fleeing from a law enforcement vehicle in violation of A.R.S. § 28-622.01. 1 He was sentenced to a partially mitigated prison term of 4.”
State v. Gonzalez, 210 P.3d 1253 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 10× “) § 28-622 (2005), as a lesser-included offense of unlawful flight from a law enforcement vehicle pursuant to A.R.S. § 28-622.01 (2005). ¶ 7 Before trial started, the trial court noted that counsel had discussed whether failure to obey a traffic officer was a lesser- *84…”
State of Arizona v. Pablo Isaac Hernandez, 474 P.3d 1191 (Ariz. 2020). · cites it 3× “See A.R.S. § 28-622.01 (2016). 3 Before trial, Hernandez requested a Willits instruction, arguing the State’s failure to collect fingerprint and DNA evidence from the car deprived him of a fair trial.”
State v. Schaefer, 790 P.2d 281 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 4× “By information filed October 27, 1987, defendant was charged with unlawful flight from a law enforcement vehicle, a class 5 felony in violation of A.R.S. §§ 28-622.01, -444 and -445. On March 25, 1988, defendant entered into a written plea agreement to plead guilty to the…”
State v. Miller, 844 P.2d 588 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 12× “He renews his contentions that A.R.S. §§ 28-622.01 and 28-624(C) are unconstitutionally vague and that the state failed to establish an essential element of A.”
State of Arizona v. Francisco L. Encinas Valenzuela, 350 P.3d 811 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 4× “See A.R.S. §§ 28-622.01, 28-624(C); see also A.”
State v. Lee, 176 P.3d 712 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “In Womack , the context was this court’s determination that the defendant’s act of fleeing was adequately covered by A.R.S. § 28-622.01 (flight from a pursuing law enforcement vehicle) and that “the defendant’s flight *518 was conduct which prevented, without the use of…”
Show all 48 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-622.01(1) — 1 case
Waller v. Nogales, City of (D. Ariz. 2024).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-622.01(A) — 1 case
State v. Tucker (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).
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.