565 P.3d 236
Ariz.2025Background
- Constable Deborah Martinez-Garibay attempted to serve a writ of restitution (eviction) to a tenant who had threatened others with a gun.
- She was accompanied by Angela Fox, the apartment manager, during the execution of the writ; both were fatally shot by the tenant.
- Angela's spouse, William Fox, sued Garibay's estate, Pima County, and the Constable Ethics Board for wrongful death, alleging negligence/gross negligence by Garibay.
- Garibay’s spouse claimed judicial immunity for Garibay as a constable executing a court order, and moved for judgment on the pleadings.
- The trial court denied immunity; the court of appeals reversed, finding Garibay immune because her conduct didn't constitute "misconduct" under A.R.S. § 11-449.
- The Arizona Supreme Court granted review to clarify whether § 11-449 abrogates or limits judicial immunity for constables and the meaning of "misconduct."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does common law judicial immunity apply to constables executing writs? | Constables should not be absolutely immune when serving writs, especially in cases of negligence or gross negligence. | Constables are court officers and judicial immunity should apply to their conduct when executing court orders. | Judicial immunity applies to constables when acting under court orders. |
| Does A.R.S. § 11-449 abrogate/limit such immunity? | The statute abrogates (eliminates) common law judicial immunity for constables in all cases of "misconduct." | The statute does not expressly abrogate but only limits immunity for intentional misconduct, not mere negligence. | Statute limits, but does not abrogate, immunity—only intentional misconduct, not negligence/gross negligence, defeats immunity. |
| What constitutes "misconduct" under § 11-449? | Includes negligence, gross negligence, or any wrongful conduct; Garibay’s conduct was at least grossly negligent. | "Misconduct" requires an intentional violation of a rule, standard, or law, not mere negligence/gross negligence. | "Misconduct" means intentional violation of duty, rule, or law; negligence and gross negligence do not qualify. |
| Did Fox plead sufficient facts to allege "misconduct"? | Complaint alleged negligence and gross negligence which should suffice as misconduct. | Complaint did not allege intentional wrongdoing or violation of duty; only negligence/gross negligence. | No—complaint alleged only negligence/gross negligence, not intentional misconduct, so immunity applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Acevedo v. Pima Cnty. Adult Prob. Dep’t, 142 Ariz. 319 (Ct. App. 1984) (judicial immunity extends to officers acting per court order, but not when acting contrary to directives)
- Adams v. State, 185 Ariz. 440 (Ct. App. 1995) (judicial immunity does not cover purely administrative or supervisory actions not integral to judicial process)
- Burk v. State, 215 Ariz. 6 (Ct. App. 2007) (explaining the independence rationale for judicial immunity)
- Clark v. Campbell, 219 Ariz. 66 (Ct. App. 2008) (constables’ duties are court-ordered and judicial in nature)
- Schuster v. Merrill, 56 Ariz. 114 (1940) (sheriffs liable for violations of clearly established duties in process execution)