SR1036 is a Senate resolution expressing formal disapproval of public statements made by the Arizona Attorney General about when members of the public may use deadly force against law enforcement officers. The resolution states that the Attorney General’s comments were incomplete, inaccurate, or insufficiently qualified, and it emphasizes that Arizona law allows the use of force against peace officers only in narrow, exceptional circumstances defined by statute and case law.
The resolution also asserts that the Attorney General should retract the statements, issue corrective guidance, and publicly affirm support for federal, state, and local law enforcement officers, including ICE officers. It further calls on her to exercise greater care in public legal commentary and, more strongly, to resign from office. The stated purpose is to protect public safety, law enforcement safety, the rule of law, and confidence in the Attorney General’s office and Arizona’s justice system.
Impact
SR1036 does not amend Arizona statutes or create new legal duties; it is a nonbinding legislative resolution expressing the Senate’s position on the Attorney General’s public remarks. Its practical effect is political and symbolic, using the Senate’s formal voice to criticize the Attorney General and to urge corrective action, while restating the Senate’s view of Arizona law on self-defense and use of force against officers. The resolution may influence public debate, law-enforcement relations, and perceptions of the Attorney General’s office, but it does not itself change criminal law or self-defense standards.
Sentiment
The overall sentiment in the available record is strongly negative toward the Attorney General’s statements and supportive of the resolution’s message. The bill passed the Senate on third reading by a 17-13 vote, indicating meaningful but not unanimous support. The resolution’s language reflects a law-and-order framing, with emphasis on public safety, deference to lawful authority, and support for law enforcement.
Contention
The main point of contention is whether the Attorney General’s public comments about the use of force against police were accurate and appropriately qualified. Supporters of the resolution view the statements as dangerous, misleading, and likely to endanger officers and the public; they also object to the Attorney General’s use of state resources to solicit complaints targeting ICE officers. Opponents likely viewed the resolution as an overreach or as a political attack on the Attorney General, especially because it goes beyond criticism and explicitly calls for resignation. The inclusion of ICE-related language and the call for support of all law-enforcement officers also appears to be a notable flashpoint.