technical correction; police; fire departments
HB 2455 is a narrow technical correction bill that amends the Arizona Revised Statutes definition section for the article governing police and fire departments. The bill makes a wording change in A.R.S. § 9-901 by correcting the definition of “peace officers” from “include includes” to “include,” without changing the substantive meaning of the term. It leaves the other definitions in the section unchanged, including “classification,” “month,” and “professional firefighter.”
Because the measure is limited to a single definitional fix, it does not create new programs, benefits, duties, or enforcement mechanisms. Its primary purpose is to clean up statutory language and improve clarity in the laws that apply to police departments, fire departments, and peace officers’ units under this article.
The bill would make a minor amendment to Title 9, section 9-901 of the Arizona Revised Statutes, affecting the definitions used in the article governing municipal police and fire departments. The practical legal impact is minimal: it corrects a grammatical error in the statutory text and preserves the existing scope of the definition of “peace officers,” which includes regularly salaried deputy sheriffs, policemen, and police officers of duly organized police departments. No affected party would experience a substantive change in rights, obligations, or eligibility as a result of the amendment.
There is no recorded committee testimony or vote history in the provided materials, and the bill’s caption and text indicate it is a routine technical correction. Based on the bill’s narrow scope, the likely sentiment is neutral to favorable, as such cleanup measures are typically noncontroversial and intended to improve statutory accuracy rather than alter policy. The absence of recorded opposition or debate suggests no visible controversy in the available record.
No specific points of contention are identified in the provided materials. The only change is a drafting correction to the definition of “peace officers,” and there is no indication that lawmakers disputed the substance of the definition or its application. If any concern existed, it would likely be limited to the general practice of making technical amendments rather than any policy disagreement over police or fire department law.