Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 41
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1741 (2026)

Arizona highway patrol; employees; authority; compensation

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

A. The department shall maintain a division known as the Arizona highway patrol.

B. The division shall be composed of a patrol superintendent, patrolmen, and clerical and technical assistants as designated by the director.

C. The patrol superintendent and patrolmen are vested with the authority of peace officers, primarily for the purpose of enforcing laws relating to the use of highways and operation of vehicles thereon.

D. The compensation of employees of the division shall be determined by the director, and shall, together with expenses of the division, be budgeted and paid from the state highway fund.

E. This division shall also consist of the following sections:

1. Communications.

2. Criminal identification.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1973–1992 · leading case: State v. Boykin, 508 P.2d 1151 (Ariz. 1973).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Boykin, 508 P.2d 1151 (Ariz. 1973). · cites it 13× “§ 28-235 or A.R.S. § 41-1741. However, A.R.S. §§ 28-235 and 41-1741, do not support the petitioners’ contention.”
State v. Boykin, 538 P.2d 383 (Ariz. 1975). · cites it 2× “§ 28-235, dealing with the duties of the Law Enforcement Merit System Council, nor A.R.S. § 41-1741, which enumerates the duties of the Director of D.”
Goode v. Alfred, 828 P.2d 1235 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “§ 41-1711; The Highway Patrol, A.R.S. § 41-1741; Capitol Police, A.R.S. § 41-794; Airport Police, A.”
State v. Boykin, 502 P.2d 166 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1973). “for payment of non-scheduled overtime compensation; that the respondents’ claims for overtime compensation had been rejected by the director of the Department of Public Safety; and that the director had breached his duty to “properly determine and budget for compensation of…”
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.