Police Misconduct in Arizona: AZPOST, Reviews, and Decertification

Police misconduct in Arizona is handled primarily inside the accused officer’s own department, under a state law that requires at least two-thirds of any investigative or disciplinary body to be certified officers from that same agency. Layered on top are procedural rights for officers being interviewed, training requirements for anyone sitting on a civilian review board, and a separate state board — AZPOST — that certifies officers and can strip that certification when misconduct is proven.

Who Investigates Officer Misconduct

Under ARS 38-1117, any government committee, board, office, or entity that investigates officer misconduct, influences how an investigation is conducted, or recommends or imposes discipline must fill at least two-thirds of its seats with AZPOST-certified law enforcement officers from the same department or agency as the officer being investigated.¹ Rank does not matter; a patrol officer counts the same as a captain.

The rule reaches further than voting board members. It covers staff, employees, and anyone who participates in the investigation, influences it, certifies it, or recommends or imposes discipline. Investigators, analysts, and support personnel involved in the process all count against the two-thirds calculation.¹

Findings and recommendations from these bodies require a majority vote. No single member and no small faction can start an investigation, push a discipline recommendation forward, or impose punishment on their own.¹ Between the composition rule and the majority vote requirement, certified officers from the accused’s department hold the controlling voice at every stage.

The legislature declared professionalism and integrity standards for law enforcement a matter of statewide concern, which under Arizona’s constitutional framework means local ordinances and city charters cannot override it.¹ A city cannot create a civilian-majority board with real investigative or disciplinary power that sidesteps the two-thirds rule.

When a Department Cannot Meet the Two-Thirds Rule

Smaller agencies and specialized units may not have enough certified officers available for a formal committee. In that case, a supervisor, department head, or agency head over the officer can still investigate and impose discipline, provided they act independently of the non-compliant body.¹ The investigation shifts from a committee model to a chain-of-command model. What the supervisor cannot do is defer to or rubber-stamp the entity that failed the composition test.

Civilian Review Boards in Arizona

Arizona does not prohibit civilian review boards, but ARS 38-1161 sets a demanding qualification for anyone who sits on one that reviews peace officer actions. Before joining, a member must complete one of three paths: a community college police academy, eighty hours of AZPOST-certified training, or a current or former AZPOST certification.²

The eighty-hour training covers use of force justification under Arizona law, the dynamics of force encounters, de-escalation, body-worn cameras and their limitations, in-custody deaths, and how criminal and administrative investigations work including officers’ representation rights. Twenty of those eighty hours must be scenario-based simulated training, so members are put through the same kinds of decision-making pressures officers face rather than only studying the topic in a classroom.²

One category of board escapes the two-thirds composition rule: a civil service board or similar entity that only reviews discipline already imposed by someone else, with no authority to set the initial discipline or increase it. If the board can only affirm or reduce a punishment, it falls outside the composition requirement. If it can escalate discipline or influence an investigation, it must comply.¹

Officer Rights During an Internal Investigation

ARS 38-1104 sets baseline protections for officers facing administrative interviews that could lead to dismissal, demotion, or suspension. Routine supervisory conversations and counseling sessions do not trigger these rights; the statute applies where the officer reasonably believes the outcome could be one of those three serious consequences.

Written Notice and Advance Materials

Before the interview, the employer must give the officer written notice covering the alleged facts, the nature of the investigation, the officer’s status, every known allegation, and the right to have a representative present. Relevant, readily available materials — complaints, audio, video — must be turned over at least twenty-four hours before the interview.³

Three narrow situations allow the employer to shorten or skip that 24-hour window: the officer waives it, the employer determines an earlier interview is needed to protect the integrity of the officer’s statement, or the circumstances of a major law enforcement incident require a faster timeline.³

Representation

The officer can request a representative at no cost to the employer. The representative’s role is limited to observing and taking notes. Generally the representative cannot be an attorney and must come from the same agency, but if no one from the same agency is reasonably available, the employer may allow someone from the officer’s professional membership organization. The officer can take reasonable breaks to consult an attorney by phone or in person. Employers cannot retaliate against officers who request a representative or against employees who serve as one.³

Officers may record their own interview. Notes taken by the officer, representative, or attorney can only be used to assist with the investigation or disciplinary matter, and unauthorized release of information can lead to discipline for the officer or the representative.³

Comparable Discipline on Request

If the investigation leads to proposed discipline, the officer can request a summary of discipline imposed on other officers of similar rank and experience within the past two years for the same or similar violation. The employer cannot finalize the discipline or schedule a hearing until that summary has been provided.³ The officer gets a concrete benchmark for challenging a punishment that looks out of line with how comparable conduct was treated.

AZPOST: Complaints, Independent Investigations, and Decertification

The Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board sits above individual departments. Under ARS 41-1822, AZPOST sets minimum qualifications for officers statewide, certifies officers who meet those standards, and takes action against those who fall out of compliance.⁴

AZPOST can receive misconduct complaints from any person. It can ask the officer’s agency to investigate, or it can conduct an independent investigation on its own. A recognized law enforcement association that believes an agency refused to investigate credible misconduct, or reached conclusions that contradict the evidence, can bring the complaint directly to AZPOST, which then decides whether an independent investigation is warranted.⁴ That path is a safety valve when an internal investigation goes nowhere despite obvious evidence.

AZPOST has authority to deny, suspend, revoke, or cancel an officer’s certification.⁴ Losing certification effectively ends a law enforcement career in Arizona; no agency can employ an uncertified officer in a sworn role.

What Gets an Officer Decertified

AZPOST’s administrative rules identify grounds for discretionary denial, suspension, or revocation of certification. The commonly relevant ones include committing a felony or any offense involving dishonesty, unlawful sexual conduct, or physical violence; abusing official authority (malfeasance) or failing to perform required duties (nonfeasance); making misleading statements to AZPOST or withholding information the board requests; conduct or a pattern of conduct that tends to diminish public trust in the profession; using or being under the influence of alcohol on duty without authorization; and performing peace officer duties without active certified status.⁵

One trigger is mandatory rather than discretionary. When AZPOST receives a certified copy of a felony conviction judgment, the board must revoke certification. There is no hearing and no weighing of circumstances.⁵

Mandatory Reporting When an Officer Leaves

AZPOST can only act on misconduct it knows about, which is why ARS 41-1828.01 requires agencies to report. An agency may report officer misconduct to AZPOST at any time, and must report it when the officer leaves the agency, whether through termination, resignation, or any other separation.⁶ The provision closes the loophole where an officer resigns mid-investigation and quietly moves to another department.

Agencies conducting background checks on officer applicants must share known misconduct information with the requesting agency. Both the reporting agency and AZPOST have civil liability protection for disclosing this information in good faith. Side deals in which an agency agrees not to report misconduct to AZPOST in exchange for an officer’s resignation are prohibited.⁶

1
Arizona Legislature. Arizona Code 38-1117 – Law Enforcement Officer Investigation and Discipline Committee, Board, Agency, Department, Office, Entity or Person; Membership; Qualifications; Exceptions; Statewide Concern; Definition
2
Arizona Legislature. Arizona Code 38-1161 – Civilian Review Board Members; Required Training; Statewide Concern; Exception; Definition
3
Arizona Legislature. Arizona Code 38-1104 – Internal Investigations; Notice; Employee Representative; Confidentiality; Probation; Termination; Exception
4
Arizona Legislature. Arizona Code 41-1822 – Powers and Duties of Board; Definition
5
Legal Information Institute (LII) – Cornell Law School. Arizona Administrative Code R13-4-109 – Denial, Revocation, Suspension, or Cancellation of Peace Officer Certified Status
6
Arizona Legislature. Arizona Code 41-1828.01 – Required Law Enforcement Agency Reporting