9-500.21. Civil enforcement of municipal ordinances
A city or town that classifies ordinance violations as civil offenses shall establish procedures to hear and determine these violations that may include:
1. Filing of a complaint before a hearing officer. The city or town magistrate may serve as a hearing officer or the city or town may appoint a separate hearing officer.
2. Timely notice of the citation to the violator. If the city or town is unable to personally serve the notice, the notice may be served in the same manner prescribed for alternative methods of service by the Arizona rules of civil procedure or by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested.
3. Procedures for the hearing, record on appeal, default by a defendant and rules of evidence that generally comply with those for civil traffic offenses.
4. Imposition of a civil penalty. At the conclusion of the hearing, the hearing officer shall determine whether a violation exists and, if so, may impose civil penalties of up to the maximum amount specified in section 9-240 for ordinance violations for each day a violation exists beyond the initial notice constituting a separate offense. The hearing officer may also order abatement of the violation pursuant to section 9-499.
5. A provision that if the violator does not comply with a civil enforcement action, the city or town may file a criminal charge. A civil enforcement action is not a prerequisite to the filing of a criminal charge.
6. Judicial review of the final decisions of the hearing officer pursuant to section 12-124.
Notes of Decisions
William Roubos v. Hon. Leslie miller/tucson, 153 P.3d 1045 (Ariz. 2007).
· cites it 4× “” The underlying civil infraction proceedings, the City maintains, remain “civil offense proceedings” governed by A.R.S. § 9-500.21 (Supp.2006). ¶ 12 We are not persuaded.”
Roubos v. Miller, 138 P.3d 735 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 12× “) ¶ 10 When confronted with this language during oral argument, the City emphasized that another, more specific statute, A.R.S. § 9-500.21, articulates the procedure by which ordinance violations may be pursued as “civil offenses” by a municipality.”
Roubos v. City of Tucson (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 11× “) ¶10 When confronted with this language during oral argument, the City emphasized that another, more specific statute, A.R.S. § 9-500.21, articulates the procedure by which ordinance violations may be pursued as “civil offenses” by a municipality.”
Grand Holdings v. Peoria (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 2× “” ¶28 Appellants also argue the Board failed to comply with A.R.S. § 9-500.21, which sets forth procedures for hearing and determining civil offenses.”
Birt (D. Ariz. 2025).
· cites it 2× “This is 5 authorized by state statute, A.R.S. § 9-500.21, which states: 6 A city or town that classifies ordinance violations as civil offenses shall establish procedures to hear and determine these violations that may include: 7 1.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 9-500.21(3) — 2 cases
Roubos v. Miller, 138 P.3d 735 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
“) ¶ 10 When confronted with this language during oral argument, the City emphasized that another, more specific statute, A.R.S. § 9-500.21, articulates the procedure by which ordinance violations may be pursued as “civil offenses” by a municipality.”
Roubos v. City of Tucson (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
“) ¶10 When confronted with this language during oral argument, the City emphasized that another, more specific statute, A.R.S. § 9-500.21, articulates the procedure by which ordinance violations may be pursued as “civil offenses” by a municipality.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 9-500.21(4) — 2 cases
Roubos v. Miller, 138 P.3d 735 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
“) ¶ 10 When confronted with this language during oral argument, the City emphasized that another, more specific statute, A.R.S. § 9-500.21, articulates the procedure by which ordinance violations may be pursued as “civil offenses” by a municipality.”
Roubos v. City of Tucson (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
“) ¶10 When confronted with this language during oral argument, the City emphasized that another, more specific statute, A.R.S. § 9-500.21, articulates the procedure by which ordinance violations may be pursued as “civil offenses” by a municipality.”
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.