The Arizona Criminal Justice Commission’s 2024 Arizona Use of Force Map covers incidents reported by Arizona law enforcement between January 1, 2022, and May 31, 2024.
During that period, 382 total use-of-force incidents were reported to the FBI’s National Use of Force Data Collection portal by 36 Arizona law enforcement agencies. Those incidents involved 626 law enforcement officers and 387 subjects.
A map can show where reported incidents occurred, but it cannot determine whether force was justified. If you have experienced an arrest in Arizona, contact Phoenix criminal defense lawyers at Suzuki Law Offices for a free consultation. We have helped Arizona residents since 2007.
What Counts as a Reported Use-of-Force Incident in Arizona?
Arizona’s public use-of-force reporting does not cover every push, grab, command, takedown, or routine arrest. The report uses the FBI’s National Use of Force Data Collection framework. Under the report’s definition, a use-of-force incident includes an event where:
- A law enforcement officer’s use of force is connected to a person’s death
- A person receives a serious injury because of force used by law enforcement
- An officer discharges a firearm at or in the direction of a person, even if no death or injury occurs
That means the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission report is focused on higher-severity force incidents. It is not a complete list of every physical contact between police and the public. High numbers do not mean every use of force was unlawful.
When you reach out to Suzuki Law Offices, we are prepared to review your encounter with police and explain whether your rights may have been violated.
Arizona Use-of-Force Incidents at a Glance
The ACJC report found:
| Arizona Use-of-Force Data | Reported Total |
| Reporting period | Jan. 1, 2022 to May 31, 2024 |
| Total reported incidents | 382 |
| Law enforcement officers involved | 626 |
| Subjects involved | 387 |
| Agencies reporting at least one incident | 36 |
| Agencies reporting no incidents for all months | 24 |
| Agencies that did not report for any months | 13 |
| Agencies with inconsistent reporting | 29 |
Reported incidents dropped across the partial reporting window:
| Year | Reported Use-of-Force Incidents |
| 2022 | 187 |
| 2023 | 145 |
| 2024, Jan. through May only | 50 |
The 2024 number should not be compared to a full year because it only covers the first five months.
Arizona Cities With the Most Reported Use-of-Force Incidents
The city-level map in the ACJC report showed Phoenix with the largest count of reported incidents.
| City | Reported Incidents |
| Phoenix | 109 |
| Tucson | 81 |
| Glendale | 36 |
| Mesa | 24 |
| Scottsdale | 12 |
| Peoria | 11 |
| Chandler | 10 |
| Casa Grande | 9 |
| Surprise | 8 |
| Avondale | 7 |
| Tempe | 5 |
This does not mean Phoenix is automatically the most dangerous place in Arizona. Phoenix is the state’s largest city. It has more residents, more calls for service, more arrests, more patrol activity, more traffic stops, and more encounters between police and the public.
The more important question isn’t just “which city has the most incidents?” Instead, it’s: what events led up to the use of force, and was there evidence backing the officer’s actions? That is the key question in a criminal case.
Why Phoenix Appears as the Largest Use-of-Force Cluster
Phoenix had 109 reported use-of-force incidents during the period covered by the ACJC report. Several factors can make Phoenix appear larger on a use-of-force map, including a larger population, a higher call volume, more patrol coverage, or more traffic stops.
Phoenix may also see more serious felony investigations and more contact around downtown, transit corridors, and major roads. More arrests and police-public encounters can increase the city’s ranking as well.
High Incidents Do Not Necessarily Mean Increased Misconduct
A map showing that Phoenix has the largest group of cases is not proof of wrongdoing. It should be seen as a starting point for investigation. If someone is arrested in Phoenix, the key questions to ask are related to their specific case, including:
- Why did the officers approach?
- Was the stop legal?
- Was the detention longer than necessary?
- Did the person resist, run away, threaten the officers, or comply?
- Is there body camera footage available?
- Did officers give clear instructions?
- Does the report match the video evidence?
- Was the use of force appropriate based on what the officers knew at the time?
- Was the person charged with resisting arrest, aggravated assault, disorderly conduct, weapons misconduct, or another related offense?
A citywide map cannot answer those questions. A defense investigation by the team at Suzuki Law Offices can.
Why Police Use-of-Force Data Matters in Criminal Defense
Use-of-force incidents often sit at the center of criminal cases involving:
- Resisting arrest
- Aggravated assault on a police officer
- Disorderly conduct
- Obstruction of law enforcement
- Unlawful flight
- Weapons-related allegations
- Domestic violence calls
- Drug investigations
- Mental health crisis calls
- Traffic stops that escalated
- Search warrant entries
- Officer-involved shootings
In these cases, the state may rely heavily on the officer’s version of events. At Suzuki Law Offices, we can challenge state narratives as part of your defense.
Evidence that Indicates Whether Force Was Appropriate
The defense may need to review every available source of proof, including:
- Body camera footage
- Dash camera footage
- 911 audio
- Dispatch notes
- Medical records
- Photographs of injuries
- Witness statements
- Surveillance video
- Cell phone video
- Lab reports
- Prior officer credibility issues when available
Most Reported Incidents Began With Suspicious Criminal Activity
The ACJC report found that the most common reason for initial law enforcement contact was suspicious criminal activity. The report listed the reasons for initial contact as follows:
| Reason for Initial Contact | Reported Incidents |
| Criminal suspicious activity | 281 |
| Traffic stop | 32 |
| Follow-up investigation | 25 |
| Medical reason | 14 |
| Warrant | 10 |
| Routine patrol | 9 |
| Other | 9 |
| Court order | 2 |
This matters because use-of-force cases often begin long before the force itself. An officer may say the encounter started because of suspicious activity. The defense may ask what made the activity suspicious.
Where Use-of-Force Incidents Were Reported
The report found that most use-of-force incidents happened at homes or residences. After that, they occurred on roads, streets, sidewalks, and in parking areas. The top places reported were:
| Location | Reported Incidents |
| Residence or home | 121 |
| Highway, road, street, or sidewalk | 109 |
| Parking lot or garage | 53 |
| Field or woods | 18 |
| Convenience store | 14 |
A home encounter could raise issues such as search warrants or constitutional questions regarding the lawfulness of officers’ entry.
A road or sidewalk encounter may involve a stop or an arrest in public. A parking lot encounter may involve store video, apartment video, body camera footage, witnesses, or questions about whether the person was free to leave. At Suzuki Law Offices, our Phoenix criminal defense lawyers can review your arrest and determine whether your rights may have been violated.
What Types of Resistance Were Reported?
The ACJC report stated that the majority of reported incidents involved some type of resistance. Agencies reported resistance in 96.1% of incidents, with noncompliance as the most common category. The most frequent resistance categories included:
| Reported Resistance Type | Reported Count |
| Noncompliance | 195 |
| General resistance | 142 |
| Fleeing | 132 |
| Displayed weapon | 101 |
| Firearm | 88 |
| Barricade | 50 |
| Physical resistance | 44 |
| Other weapon | 36 |
| Verbal resistance | 28 |
| Vehicle | 11 |
| Throwing | 5 |
| Fluids | 2 |
The report also noted that agencies can report multiple types of resistance in one incident, so the categories do not add up to 100%. This is where a criminal case can get complicated. For example, “Noncompliance” can mean many things.
What Types of Force Were Reported?
The ACJC report found that the most common type of force was an officer-drawn firearm, followed by canine use and physical force.
| Type of Force Applied | Reported Count |
| Firearm | 183 |
| Canine | 95 |
| Physical force | 86 |
| Electronic | 37 |
| Projectile | 34 |
| Chemical | 18 |
| Other | 7 |
| Explosive | 4 |
| Blunt object | 3 |
The report also found that multiple force types were reported in 15.4% of incidents.
Evidence Related to Firearm Usage
A firearm that is drawn does not always mean it has been fired. In this report, we include incidents where a firearm was used as the type of force. The category is important for defense reasons, but the details are even more important.
- Was the firearm drawn, pointed, or fired?
- What was the person doing at that moment?
- Did officers have accurate information?
- Was a weapon actually present?
- Did officers mistake an object for a weapon?
- Did the person know commands were being given?
- Was less force available?
- Were there warnings?
- Did the person pose an immediate threat?
Statewide data do not answer those questions.
Fatal and Non-Fatal Use-of-Force Incidents
The ACJC report found that 27.2% of reported use-of-force incidents resulted in the death of the subject. It also reported serious injuries to subjects in 58.4% of incidents.
The report noted that a firearm was involved in nearly all fatal incidents. For non-fatal incidents, canine use, firearm involvement, and physical force were the most reported force types.
Those numbers are serious, but they must be read with the reporting definition in mind. The dataset is built around deaths, serious injuries, and firearm discharges. It is not a general low-level force dataset. That makes it especially important not to overread the numbers.
What the Data Does Not Prove
The ACJC report says the data is not a complete representation of use-of-force incidents across Arizona because not every agency reported every month. It also says ACJC did not verify or validate entries with the original agencies and left some missing data unchanged.
This is an important warning. The map is helpful, but it is not a final decision. The data shows patterns that have been reported, but it cannot prove important specifics about every case.
- Whether the officer acted lawfully.
- If the person committed a crime.
- Whether the arrest was lawful.
- If use of force was justified.
- When use of force was excessive.
- If the police report was complete and accurate.
- When a criminal charge can be proven.
Why Reporting Gaps Matter
The report identified 102 Arizona law enforcement agencies in the FBI’s National Use of Force Data Collection.
- 36 agencies reported at least one use-of-force incident.
- 24 agencies reported no incidents during any month.
- 13 agencies did not report during any month.
- 29 agencies had inconsistent reporting.
A city or agency that reports fewer incidents might actually have fewer events happening. However, it could also have issues with reporting or different enforcement practices.
How Use-of-Force Evidence Can Affect an Arizona Criminal Case
When a use-of-force incident leads to criminal charges, the defense lawyers at Suzuki Law Offices may need to examine both sides of the encounter. Potential defense issues can include:
- No lawful basis for the stop.
- No probable cause for arrest
- Unclear or conflicting officer commands
- Use of force before the person had time to comply
- Missing or incomplete body camera footage
- A report that does not match the video.
- A medical issue may be mistaken for defiance or noncompliance.
- Someone experiencing a mental health crisis may appear resistant to officers.
- Injury, fear, or confusion can affect a person’s ability to respond or follow instructions.
- The use of force may escalate an already difficult situation.
- Witness accounts may differ from the version described in police reports.
- In some cases, the use of force may involve self-defense or the defense of another person.
- The person involved may not have intended to resist or interfere.
These issues matter in resisting arrest and aggravated assault cases because the state still has to prove the legal elements.
What to Do After a Use-of-Force Arrest in Arizona
If force was used during your arrest, ensure the evidence is preserved. Important actions after an incident include:
- Photograph visible injuries.
- Seek medical attention and keep records.
- Write down what happened while the details are still fresh.
- Preserve clothing or other property that was damaged during the incident.
- Identify anyone who may have witnessed what happened.
- Check for nearby security cameras or other video footage.
- Through an attorney, request relevant body-camera and dash-camera footage.
- Consider speaking with a criminal defense lawyer before making statements.
- Avoid posting about the incident on social media.
The sooner the defense begins, the more evidence may be available so that our team at Suzuki Law Offices can build you a stronger case.
The Bottom Line on the Arizona Police Use-of-Force Map
The Arizona police use-of-force map shows where serious incidents occurred between January 2022 and May 2024. Many of these incidents started with suspicious behavior, and officers frequently responded by drawing their firearms.
Use-of-force data doesn’t determine if force was justified in individual cases.
Suzuki Law Offices provides defense for individuals facing criminal charges in Phoenix and across Arizona. Founding attorney R.J. Suzuki is a former Assistant United States Attorney. Reach out to our criminal defense team for a free consultation to review your case.
Sources
- Arizona Criminal Justice Commission, Arizona Use of Force Report, 2024.
- Arizona Revised Statutes § 38-1118, Use-of-force incidents; data collection; reports.
- FBI National Use of Force Data Collection.
- Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-409, Justification; use of physical force in law enforcement.
- Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-410, Justification; use of deadly physical force in law enforcement.
Call or text (602) 682-5270 or complete a Free Case Evaluation form