Connect with us

Arizona

Thin Blue Warning: How Arizona law enforcement can use warning shots despite Shannon’s Law

Published

on

Thin Blue Warning: How Arizona law enforcement can use warning shots despite Shannon’s Law


Arizona law enforcement agencies have the option to fire warning shots, but it’s a rare and controversial tactic.

Until November, the Sedona Police Department allowed the practice under specific circumstances. But policing experts argue that firing a gun into the air to deter a threat conflicts with state law.

Advertisement

What they’re saying:

In the responses from more than 40 law enforcement agencies, a majority gave a resounding “no” on a questionable tactic. We discovered some departments allow warning shots — raising serious concerns about legality, accountability and public safety.

We can confirm that the Sedona Police Department’s policy no longer allows officers to use warning shots. Ex-Deputy Chief Ryan Kwitkin says it’s about time.

Advertisement

“It’s unsafe to fire warning shots. This isn’t the Wild West,” Kwitkin said.

Kwitkin is the plaintiff in an ongoing lawsuit against the city. Kwitkin is suing the city of Sedona and some of its top officials, including the police chief. The city has denied the allegations and cannot comment on pending litigation.

Advertisement
Former Sedona Deputy Police Chief Ryan Kwitkin

Former Sedona Deputy Police Chief Ryan Kwitkin

Kwitkin was fired in August 2024, months after being placed on paid administrative leave.

His attorney claims his termination was unlawful and that Kwitkin faced retaliation from Chief Stephanie Foley for raising policy concerns — like the ability to fire warning shots.

Advertisement

“I went to Chief Foley and explained that under no circumstance should we allow warning shots,” Kwitkin said.

When asked what the chief’s response was, Kwitkin said: “That we’re not changing the policy. That it’s only under certain circumstances.”

Advertisement

When the Sedona Police Department was asked if there have been any documented incidents involving warning shots since 2020, records show none were fired in the last five years.

Joe Clure, executive director for the Arizona Police Officers Association

“Why would they leave it in their policy for so long until just recently?” we asked Joe Clure, executive director for the Arizona Police Officers Association. “Frankly it’s clear they have some leadership challenges at the Sedona Police Department.”

Advertisement

Clure has publicly questioned the Sedona PD’s leadership and the previous warning shot policy.

Here’s what Sedona’s policy used to say: “Warning shots or shots fired for the purpose of summoning aid are discouraged and may not be discharged unless the member reasonably believes that they appear necessary, effective, and reasonably safe.”

Advertisement

FOX 10 obtained the modified policy, which says, “Firing a firearm in a manner commonly referred to as a ‘warning shot’ is expressly prohibited in all circumstances.”

“But a lot of the concerns that I brought up were for the best interests of the citizens of Sedona, the police department, and just moving the department into the 21st century of best police practices,” Kwitkin said.

Clure said, “I think by anybody’s standard risk management should be screaming about that because it is a huge liability, I believe, and very dangerous for the community to have that even as a possibility.”

Advertisement

Dig deeper:

FOX 10 Investigates reached out to dozens of law enforcement agencies across Arizona to ask if their policies allow warning shots.

Advertisement

We received more than 40 responses from major agencies like Phoenix, Scottsdale and Tempe, along with the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office. Nearly all of them said warning shots are prohibited.

Here are some of the reasons:

Mesa PD’s policy says: “… they may prompt a suspect to return fire and may endanger innocent bystanders.”

Advertisement

Pinal County Sheriff’s Office replied by saying: “Like firing a deadly weapon as a warning? That is not allowed.”

Flagstaff PD’s policy says: “Warning shots are rarely effective and pose a danger to the officer and the community if used in lieu of deadly force on a suspect.”

Advertisement

Forty out of 44 agencies that responded say no to warning shots. That’s 90%.

The four agencies on the opposite end:

  • Tolleson Police say warning shots are “generally” discouraged unless the officer believes it’s necessary, effective and safe.
  • Lake Havasu City PD and the Greenlee County Sheriff’s Office have the same language in their policies.
  • Paradise Valley PD says, “Officers will not generally, fire warning shots” — but use-of-force decisions are discretionary and must be “objectively reasonable” based on the circumstances.

Big picture view:

Advertisement

“We created a law for just that reason, to prevent those types of rounds being fired so that they don’t to prevent them from inadvertently striking another innocent person,” Clure said.

The law is called Shannon’s Law. It is named after 14-year-old Shannon Smith, who was in the backyard of her Phoenix home when she was killed by a stray bullet in June 1999.

“When we met with the police, they told us that this is something that goes on all the time. That this is something we have to live with. We said ‘oh no, this is something that the community does not have to live with.’ Something that can be stopped,” said Lory Smith, Shannon’s mother, in a 2007 news report.

Advertisement

In 2000, Shannon’s parents worked hard to pass Shannon’s Law, making it a Class 6 felony to negligently fire a gun into the air within the limits of any Arizona municipality.

But the statute lists some exceptions, like a special permit of the chief of police of the municipality.

Advertisement

Benjamin Taylor, attorney at Taylor & Gomez Law

“What they have is what you call governmental immunity. So, a lot of times a law enforcement officer can be immune or exempt from Shannon’s Law if they’re using it in a reasonable manner. That’s where they can fire in the air. And Shannon’s Law wouldn’t apply to law,” said Benjamin Taylor, attorney at Taylor & Gomez Law.

But the risk, he says, is obvious. For law enforcement agencies, the approach to policy is “to each their own.”

Advertisement

“A simple fix and solution would be to change your policy. Don’t train your officers in the academy that they’re allowed to shoot a warning shot,” Taylor said.

AZPOST is the state’s Peace Officers Standards and Training Board. Its executive director tells FOX 10 that AZPOST doesn’t have the authority to direct internal policies of law enforcement agencies on warning shots.

Advertisement

Clure says it’s common sense for chiefs and sheriffs to ban it for good.

“Just because it’s the police officer firing that round doesn’t mean that that bullet’s any less dangerous or any more apt to go strike an unintended victim,” Clure said.

Policies are changing

Advertisement

The Round Valley Police Department is changing its policy after being asked if officers could fire warning shots. This department was recently investigated by the Department of Public Safety for misconduct issues.

Interim Chief Jeff Sharp said Round Valley’s original policy says it’s generally discouraged to fire warning shots unless deemed necessary and reasonably safe. But immediately following our questions about the policy, he amended it to say, “Warning shots are not authorized,” which shows it’s up to the respective agency’s chief or sheriff to decide.

The list of departments that said they do not use warning shots:

Advertisement
  1. Peoria Police
  2. Goodyear Police
  3. Pinal County Sheriff’s Office
  4. El Mirage Police
  5. Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office
  6. Flagstaff Police
  7. Surprise Police
  8. Phoenix Police
  9. Apache Junction Police
  10. Mesa Police
  11. Chandler Police
  12. Gilbert Police
  13. Glendale Police
  14. Arizona State University Police
  15. Gila County Sheriff’s Office
  16. Yuma Police
  17. Avondale Police
  18. Cottonwood Police
  19. Bullhead City Police
  20. Florence Police
  21. Mohave County Sheriff’s Office
  22. St. Johns Police
  23. Quartzsite Police
  24. Prescott Police
  25. Holbrook Police
  26. Welton Police
  27. South Tucson Police
  28. Oro Valley Police
  29. Yuma County Sheriff’s Office
  30. Navajo County Sheriff’s Office
  31. Round Valley Police
  32. Clarkdale Police
  33. Thatcher Police
  34. Sierra Vista Police
  35. Marana Police
  36. Show Low Police
  37. Wickenburg Police
  38. Page Police
  39. Tucson Police
  40. Tempe Police

InvestigationsArizonaNews



Source link

Arizona

Idaho 78-58 Northern Arizona (Feb 26, 2026) Game Recap – ESPN

Published

on

Idaho 78-58 Northern Arizona (Feb 26, 2026) Game Recap – ESPN


MOSCOW, Idaho — — Jackson Rasmussen had 19 points in Idaho’s 78-58 win over Northern Arizona on Thursday.

Rasmussen also had seven rebounds for the Vandals (16-13, 8-8 Big Sky Conference). Isaiah Brickner scored 15 points while shooting 6 of 11 from the field and 2 for 4 from the line. Jack Payne shot 4 for 5 from beyond the arc to finish with 12 points.

Diego Campisano finished with 11 points for the Lumberjacks (10-19, 4-12). Chris Komin added 11 points for Northern Arizona. Karl Markus Poom also had 10 points.

—-

Advertisement

The Associated Press created this story using technology provided by Data Skrive and data from Sportradar.



Source link

Continue Reading

Arizona

Former Arizona town employee sentenced in COVID-19 relief, embezzlement case

Published

on

Former Arizona town employee sentenced in COVID-19 relief, embezzlement case


PARKER, AZ (AZFamily) — A former employee of a western Arizona town has learned her fate after being convicted in connection with COVID-19 relief fraud and embezzlement.

Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes said Thursday that Jennifer Elizabeth Alcaida, 50, a former office specialist for the Town of Parker, was sentenced by a Mohave County Superior Court judge to three and a half years in prison.

According to court records, between July and Sept. 2021, Alcaida took a total of $173,295.54 by writing unauthorized checks from town accounts, keeping cash she was required to deposit, and making personal purchases on a town-issued credit card.

Records also show she received more than $20,000 from the federal Paycheck Protection Program through the U.S. Small Business Administration after claiming the funds were needed to cover payroll for a personal business that did not exist.

Advertisement

Alcaida pleaded guilty Jan. 6 to felony charges of fraudulent schemes and theft. After her prison term, she will serve seven years of probation and has been ordered to pay $194,128.54 in restitution.

“This case is a clear example of someone who abused the public’s trust for personal gain,” Mayes said in a written statement. “Arizonans deserve to know that those who steal from their communities will be held accountable, and this sentence reflects exactly that.”

See a spelling or grammatical error in our story? Please click here to report it.

Do you have a photo or video of a breaking news story? Send it to us here with a brief description.

Copyright 2026 KTVK/KPHO. All rights reserved.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Arizona

Arizona high school banned from playoffs after harassment allegations

Published

on

Arizona high school banned from playoffs after harassment allegations


COOLIDGE, AZ (AZFamily) — Student-athletes at an Arizona high school won’t participate in the playoffs following harassment and intimidation allegations during a basketball game last week.

The Arizona Interscholastic Association (AIA) Executive Board, which oversees high school athletics in the state, said it placed the Coolidge High School athletic department on probation Wednesday, effective immediately. That means all the school’s teams cannot participate in the postseason.

“The AIA and its member schools are committed to highest levels of respectful behavior from all of the participants at all AIA events,” the AIA said in an emailed statement.

The postseason ban is in response to a 3A boys basketball game Friday between Chinle High School and Coolidge High School in Coolidge. People who were at the game took to social media to say Chinle players were harassed and had racial slurs yelled at them.

Advertisement

A livestream video of the game shows that, as teams lined up to shake hands, a uniformed officer can be seen holding some people back. One viewer claims someone on the court spat on a Chinle player.

During a meeting between the Coolidge Unified School District and the AIA, the harassment allegations included fans making “inapproproiate use of belts” and officials complained of Coolidge fans used derogatory and racist language.

There were also claims Chinle players feared for their safety so they remained in the locker room after the game and left the building in pairs “due to safety concerns.”

The Chinle Chapter Government of the Navajo Nation passed a resolution Sunday asking the AIA to investigate the game. They said Coolidge players used verbal abuse, threatening gestures and “belligerent disregard” toward the Chinle players.

“This resolution sends a clear message to the Arizona Interscholastic Association that we stand in solidarity with the safety of our students. Our student athletes adhere to the rules of conduct and we will not allow for them to be disrespected and intimidated at an AIA Sanctioned Event,” Shawna Ann Claw, a Chinle Council delegate for the Navajo Nation Council, said on social media.

Advertisement

The chapter urged the AIA to punish those responsible and set strict rules to prevent something like this from happening again.

The AIA said Monday morning that it was aware of the incidents “before, during and after” Friday’s game.

During Wednesday’s meeting, Coolidge officials said they disagreed with characterizations that the end of the game was “out of control” and that anyone’s safety was in jeopardy, saying they “provided clarification during the meeting.”

The school district said it’s asking for another meeting with the AIA executive board and consulting with attorneys about what to do next, including filing an injunction and appealing.

“We believe the ruling is disproportionate to the circumstances and carries substantial consequences for student-athletes who were not involved in the incidents in question,” Coolidge Unified School District Superintendent Dawn Dee Hodge said in a written release.

Advertisement

See a spelling or grammatical error in our story? Please click here to report it.

Do you have a photo or video of a breaking news story? Send it to us here with a brief description.

Copyright 2026 KTVK/KPHO. All rights reserved.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending