Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 38
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 38-1103 (2026)

Discipline of law enforcement officers; exceptions

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

38-1103. Discipline of law enforcement officers; exceptions

A. A law enforcement officer is not subject to disciplinary action except for just cause.

B. This section does not apply to:

1. A dismissal or demotion that is for administrative purposes, including a reduction in force.

2. A law enforcement officer who is employed by an agency of this state as an at will employee.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1953–2025 · leading case: Lewis v. Arizona State Pers. Bd., 379 P.3d 227 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lewis v. Arizona State Pers. Bd., 379 P.3d 227 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 6× “” The Director also explained that the Board’s order violated A.R.S. § 38-1103 1 , which, among other things, defines the “just cause” required to subject a law enforcement officer to disciplinary action, and A.”
Rodriquez v. Terry, 290 P.2d 248 (Ariz. 1955). · cites it 2× “Pending the appeal, the legislature enacted Chapter 88, Laws 1955, amending section 38-1103, A.C.A. 1939, which reads as follows: "Survival of causes of action — Suits by or against personal representatives.”
Gustafson v. Rajkovich, 263 P.2d 540 (Ariz. 1953). · cites it 2× “This is based on section 38-1103, A.C.A. 1939, which reads in part as follows: "* * * Any person, or his personal representative, may maintain an action against the executor or administrator of a decedent who in his lifetime has wasted, destroyed, taken or carried away or…”
Veach v. Chandler (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 5× “A.R.S. § 38-1103. As originally enacted, the POBR allowed employers and law enforcement officers to form employment agreements, such as at-will employment agreements, deviating from the POBR’s protections.”
Lane v. Tucson, City of (D. Ariz. 2025). · cites it 2× “Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 38-1103 (A). 21 Lane argues that it is undisputed that he was “demoted” under the ordinary meaning of the 22 term and that just cause was required for his demotion under state statute.”
Collins (D. Ariz. 2025). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 38-1103(A). The POBR defines “Disciplinary action” as “the dismissal, 21 the demotion or any suspension of a law enforcement officer that is a result of misconduct 22 or unsatisfactory performance.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 38-1103(A) — 2 cases
Lewis v. Arizona State Pers. Bd., 379 P.3d 227 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). “” The Director also explained that the Board’s order violated A.R.S. § 38-1103 1 , which, among other things, defines the “just cause” required to subject a law enforcement officer to disciplinary action, and A.”
Collins (D. Ariz. 2025). “A.R.S. § 38-1103(A). The POBR defines “Disciplinary action” as “the dismissal, 21 the demotion or any suspension of a law enforcement officer that is a result of misconduct 22 or unsatisfactory performance.”
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.