Samuel A. Thumma
Chair, Arizona Commission on Access to Justice
Judge, Arizona Court of Appeals
Division One
State Courts Building
1501 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85007-3329
Telephone: (602) 452-6700
[email protected]

Jamie Balson
PO Box 2156
Sun City, AZ 85372
623 471 6401
[email protected]

Legal Services for Crime Victims in Arizona ("LSCVA"), an Arizona-based nonprofit law firm which represents crime victims and domestic violence plaintiffs in contested orders of protection, respectfully submits this comment in opposition to the Committee on the Impact of Domestic Violence and the Courts' ("CIDVC's") proposed revision to Rule 38(d)(1) of the Arizona Rules of Protective Order.

Specifically, LSCVA opposes the proposed addition which would limit new allegations in an amended petition to events that occurred prior to the date the defendant was served with the initial petition or protective order: "New allegations included in the amendment must be limited to events that occurred prior to the date the defendant was served with the initial petition or protective order."

This proposed restriction would create significant and harmful limitations on the ability of petitioners — victims of domestic violence, stalking, harassment, and related offenses — to fully present their cases and obtain meaningful protection from the court in a timely and efficient manner, and would be contrary to efficient use of judicial resources:

First, the nature of abuse and threatening behavior is often ongoing and dynamic. It is not uncommon for respondents to escalate conduct after being served with an initial petition or protective order. Preventing petitioners from including post-service incidents in amended pleadings would exclude some of the most relevant and probative evidence of current risk. Courts rely on a full and accurate picture of behavior patterns to assess danger and determine appropriate protections. Artificially cutting off that timeline undermines informed judicial decision-making.

Second, such a limitation would create procedural inefficiencies and unnecessary burdens on both petitioners and the courts. If new incidents cannot be incorporated into an existing case, petitioners may be forced to file additional petitions or initiate separate proceedings to address recent conduct. This duplication increases court congestion, complicates case management, and places additional emotional and logistical strain on individuals — both petitioners and respondents, many of whom have to leave work in order to attend contested hearings — already navigating difficult circumstances.

Third, the proposed language may unintentionally incentivize harmful behavior. Respondents would effectively know that actions taken after service may not be considered within the current proceeding, potentially emboldening continued harassment or retaliation during a critical window when petitioners are most vulnerable.

Fourth, due process concerns can be addressed through less restrictive means. Courts already have tools to ensure fairness to respondents, including granting continuances when new allegations are raised (see current Rule 38(d)(2)), allowing time for response, and managing evidentiary scope appropriately). A categorical prohibition is not necessary to protect respondents’ rights and instead disproportionately harms petitioners’ ability to seek protection.

Finally, this change risks undermining the protective purpose of orders of protection. These proceedings are designed to prevent harm and respond to evolving threats. Limiting consideration to pre-service conduct ignores the reality that risk assessment must be forward-looking and responsive to ongoing and frequently dangerous behavior.

For these reasons, LSCVA strongly urges rejection of the proposed Rule 38(d)(1) pre-service limit on new allegations in amended petitions.

Patricia A. Madsen
Managing Attorney, Family Law Unit
Community Legal Services, Inc.
305 South 2nd Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85003
(602) 258-3434 x 2010
[email protected]
AZ State Bar No. 019527

Greg Sakall
Judge, Division 23
Pima County Superior Court
110 W Congress
Tucson, AZ 85701
Telephone: (520) 724-8301
[email protected]

Please find attached the Comment of the Committee on Family Court.

Emma H. Mark
Senior Litigation Counsel
Arizona Attorney General's Office
2005 N. Central Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85004
Telephone: (602) 542-8860
[email protected]
State Bar No. 032249

Arizona Attorney General's Office's comment in support of the Petition to amend Rule 23 of the Rules of Protective Order Procedure.

David Clouse, President
Navajo County Sheriff
1910 W. Jefferson
Phoenix, AZ 85009
(602) 252-6563

Attached is a letter on behalf of the Arizona Sheriffs' Association.

Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office
550 W. Jackson Street
Phoenix, AZ. 85003


Clerk of the Court
Arizona Supreme Court
103 E. Alameda
Tucson, AZ. 85701

Re: Opposition to Petition for Rule Change – ARPOP Rules 12, 23, 25, 26, and 38 (Supreme Court No. R-26-______)

Dear Clerk of the Court:
On behalf of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, we respectfully submit this letter in opposition to the proposed amendments to the Arizona Rules of Protective Order Procedure (ARPOP), specifically Rules 12, 23, 25, 26, and 38.
We strongly support efforts to enhance victim safety and improve procedural clarity in domestic violence cases. Effective enforcement of these protections, however, requires clear legal authority, defined procedures, and sufficient resources to ensure consistent, lawful, and safe implementation. As currently drafted, the proposed rule changes—particularly those relating to firearms provisions under Rule 23—create significant operational, legal, and public safety concerns for law enforcement agencies tasked with implementation and enforcement.

Primary Concerns
1. Expansion of Firearm Surrender Orders Without Operational Framework
The proposed amendments significantly expand the use of firearm prohibitions through broader “credible threat” determinations using APRAIS-based risk factors. While well-intentioned, this expansion is likely to result in a substantial increase in firearm surrender orders without corresponding statutory authority, operational guidance, or resources necessary to ensure consistent, lawful, and safe enforcement.
Law enforcement agencies will face:
• Increased firearm seizure and safekeeping responsibilities
• Expanded compliance verification duties
• A surge in follow-up investigations related to alleged non-compliance
Without clear standards and resource support, this expansion risks inconsistent application and challenges to effective enforcement across jurisdictions.
2. Ambiguity in Law Enforcement Authority
The proposed rules blur the line between civil court orders and criminal enforcement authority, creating conditions that may undermine consistent and lawful enforcement. Deputies will be placed in legally uncertain situations involving:
• Determining the scope of lawful seizure authority
• Responding to disputes over firearm ownership or access
• Enforcing orders without clearly defined probable cause standards
Law enforcement’s role is to enforce court orders as written. Effective enforcement requires clear statutory authority and procedural guidance to avoid placing deputies in the position of making legal determinations in the field, which may lead to inconsistent outcomes and increased legal exposure.
3. Significant Resource and Infrastructure Impact
The proposal does not account for the real-world capacity constraints of law enforcement agencies or the resources required for effective implementation, including:
• Property & Evidence Burden: Increased intake, storage, tracking, and return of firearms will strain already limited property and evidence resources.
• Administrative Workload: Documentation requirements, chain-of-custody protocols, and compliance tracking will require additional systems, staffing, and oversight.
• Training Requirements: Deputies will require extensive training on new procedures, legal thresholds, and de-escalation techniques.
Absent these considerations, agencies may face challenges in achieving consistent and safe implementation.
4. Elevated Officer and Public Safety Risks
Firearm surrender scenarios are among the highest-risk interactions law enforcement encounters. An increase in these encounters, without clear protocols and adequate support, raises concerns regarding:
• Volatile, emotionally charged situations
• Potential resistance or non-compliance
• Increased likelihood of escalation
Ensuring both officer and public safety requires clearly defined procedures, training, and resources to support safe and controlled enforcement actions.
5. Unfunded Mandate on Law Enforcement
The proposed rule changes impose substantial new responsibilities on law enforcement agencies without:
• Dedicated funding
• Statewide infrastructure support
• Clear interagency coordination mechanisms
Without these elements, agencies may face challenges in implementing the rules consistently and effectively, potentially resulting in varied application across jurisdictions.
6. Legal and Procedural Concerns
The petition acknowledges the goal of requiring proof of compliance when a defendant is ordered to relinquish firearm(s). However, it does not adequately define:
• Who is responsible for verifying compliance
• What constitutes sufficient proof
• What enforcement actions are authorized when compliance is disputed
Clear definitions and procedures are necessary to ensure lawful, consistent, and effective enforcement while reducing uncertainty and potential legal challenges.
Conclusion
While we support efforts to enhance victim safety and improve protective order processes, effective enforcement of these protections requires clear authority, defined procedures, and sufficient resources. As currently written, the proposed amendments present challenges that may impact consistent, lawful, and safe implementation.
We respectfully urge the Court to:
• Delay adoption of the proposed amendments.
• Engage law enforcement stakeholders statewide to develop workable implementation standards.
• Establish clear statutory authority and guidance regarding firearm seizure, storage, and compliance enforcement.
• Identify funding and resource support mechanisms prior to implementation.
Addressing these considerations will help ensure that the proposed rules achieve their intended purpose while supporting effective, consistent, and safe enforcement for the protection of victims and the community.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on this important matter. We welcome continued collaboration to ensure that any rule changes are both effective and operationally sound.

Respectfully submitted,

Clint Van Wuffen
Director of Intergovernmental Affairs
Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office
550 W. Jackson St., Phoenix, AZ 85003
Office: 602-980-4033
Email: [email protected]

Arizona Law Enforcement Legal Advisors Association
Marianne E. Sullivan #021609
Zachary A. Altman #029902
75 E. Civic Center Dr.
Gilbert, Arizona 85296
480-635-7930
[email protected]

Filed on Behalf of:
Honorable Wendy A. Million
Tucson City Court
103 E. Alameda
Tucson, AZ 85701
Telephone: (520) 791-3260
Chair, Committee on the Impact of Domestic Violence and the Courts
Staff: [email protected]

On January 7, 2026, the Committee on the Impact of Domestic Violence and the Courts (“CIDVC”) filed a Petition to amend Rules 12, 23, 25, 26, and 38 of the Arizona Rules of Protective Order Procedure (“ARPOP”). On January 22, 2026, the Court issued an order directing that the petition was open for public comment, with comments to be submitted on or before May 1, 2026. Petitioner submits this reply requesting that the Court amend the Arizona Rules of Protective Order Procedure 12, 23, 25, 26, and 38.