The Arizona State Sun Devils were looking to improve on the win they chalked up three days ago against Oklahoma. They did, sort of.

ASU added a 73-48 win over visiting Northern Arizona on Dec. 9 at Desert Financial Arena for its fifth win in the last six outings.

Defense has been the team’s focus in the last two weeks, and that showed as the Sun Devils (8-2) held their opponent to a season-low point total. Coach Bobby Hurley said the team’s goal was to hold the Lumberjacks (4-5) to under 49 points. Mission accomplished there.

ASU shot 50% 26-for-52) for the game, with an even split, 15-for-30 in the first and 11-for-22 in the second half. NAU shot 33.3% (17-for-51), which included a 5-for-26 from long distance.

What went right

Got scoring punch from the bench: ASU is 8-0 when getting more points from its bench than the opponent, and 0-2 when it does not. In this one, it wasn’t even close as the Sun Devils had a significant advantage here, 33-3. Allen Mukeba had 10, Anthony “Pig” Johnson nine, and Marcus Adams 8.

Rebounded better: This is an area where the Sun Devils have made noticeable strides in the last two games, and this was an opponent ASU should have bested on the board because it was one of the few where they have had a size advantage. The Sun Devils won the battle 41-15, with a 10-4 edge on the offensive glass and a 31-21 advantage on the defensive boards. Santiago Trout had eight, with Mukeba, Andrija Grbovic, and Massamba Diop each collecting six.

Used inside presence: The 7-0 freshman Diop had a career-high 19 points on an 8-for-10 showing from the field. Hurley said his team didn’t go to him enough

What went wrong

A few too many turnovers: ASU had 13, which is too many against a .500 foe. NAU had 10 steals, and it wasn’t exactly pressuring the ball. It was the area in which Hurley was most disappointed. Diop had four. The Sun Devils were fortunate NAU only manufactured 12 points off those turnovers. NAU also had 13 turnovers, and ASU scored 23 points off those.

A bit sluggish in the first half: ASU ended the first half up 35-26. It was up 11-2, then faltered a bit, and the Lumberjacks actually went ahead 14-13 with 10:40 left in the half.

Personnel notes

ASU has used the same starting lineup for all 10 games this season. A total of 10 athletes entered the game and all of them scored. The last person to score was Moe Odum, who came in averaging 18.9 points per game. His only two points came at the line with 30 seconds left.

Up next

The Sun Devils are back on the road for another neutral site game, the fifth of the season. ASU will square off with Santa Clara (8-2) in the Jack Jones Hoop Hall Classic at 5 p.m. on Dec. 13 at Lee’s Family Forum in Henderson, Nevada. ASU is 3-1 in neutral-site games while the Broncos are 1-1.

The teams played last season with ASU prevailing 81-74.

• The Arizona Diamondbacks have hired Jeremy Bleich from the Pittsburgh Pirates as their new assistant general manager.
• Bleich will be responsible for overseeing the organization’s pitching development.

The Diamondbacks have hired executive Jeremy Bleich away from the Pittsburgh Pirates in an assistant general manager role, sources said this week. Bleich will oversee the organization’s pitching development.

It is the latest change the Diamondbacks have made in hopes of revamping their pitching infrastructure, which has lagged behind the industry for years.

General manager Mike Hazen said last month the club was likely to push its pitchers harder from a strength and conditioning standpoint in hopes of generating more big-league-caliber arms.

Bleich had been the Pirates’ director of pitching development. That organization has done well developing pitching — both starters and relievers — in recent years. This past season, the Pirates posted the third-best ERA (3.76) in the National League with a staff that included several homegrown arms.

Bleich, 38, pitched parts of 11 seasons in professional baseball. He was drafted 44th overall out of Stanford by the New York Yankees in 2008. He made two appearances in the majors with the Oakland Athletics in 2018.

Bleich is the first high-ranking external addition the Diamondbacks have made to their front office in years.

PHOENIX – 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.

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.

“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.

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.

“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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

Dig deeper:

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

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.”

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.”

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:

“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.

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.

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.”

“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.

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

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:

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