News

  • 04 Jun 2024 5:49 PM | Anonymous member (Administrator)

    Click here to go to a pdf of the Annual Report.

  • 26 May 2020 5:00 PM | Anonymous member (Administrator)

    Due to concern for the spread of COVID-19 in the general population, the Governor of the State of Arizona declared a statewide public health emergency on March 11, 2020 pursuant to A.R.S. § 26-303 and in accordance with A.R.S. § 26-301(15). Since March 18, 2020, several administrative orders have been issued in response to the COVID-19 public health threat that limited and modified court operations to ensure justice in Arizona is administered safely. The most recent such order, Administrative Order No. 2020-70 issued on April 24, 2020, directed Arizona’s courts to conduct business in a manner that reduced the risks associated with COVID-19.This order supersedes that administrative order and provides direction on transition toresumption of certain operations in an orderly way that prioritizes the safety of the public, judges,and employees of the judiciary.

    For the purposes of this order, the term “judicial leadership” refers, as applicable, to the chief judge of the court of appeals, the presiding superior court judge, the presiding judge of a limited jurisdiction court that has multiple judges, or, for limited jurisdiction courts that have only one judge, the judge of such court.

    Arizona courts remain open to serve the public. Nevertheless, given the ongoing threat to public safety, certain limitations and changes in court practices and operations are still necessary. These changes will occur in phases consistent with this order and the Standards in Attachment A.

    Therefore, pursuant to Article VI, Sections 3 and 5, of the Arizona Constitution,

    IT IS ORDERED that all Arizona Courts and the office of the presiding disciplinary judge may begin transitioning to in-person proceedings on June 1, 2020 to the extent this can be safely accomplished.

    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that presiding superior court judges continue to meet with local criminal justice system stakeholders to coordinate how best to handle the phasing-in of normal procedures in criminal proceedings, including resuming petit and grand jury proceedings.

    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that presiding superior court judges shall determine for the courts in their respective counties how in-person court proceedings and courthouse activities are to be phased-in and conducted, consistent with this order, in a manner that protects the health and safety of all participants. The chief judge of each court of appeals division shall determine how in-person court proceedings are to be phased-in and conducted.

    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

    I. TO PROTECT COURTHOUSE SAFETY:

    1. The presiding superior court judge of each county and the chief judge of each division of the court of appeals is authorized to adopt or suspend any local rule or order needed to address the current public health emergency in cooperation with public health officials and to take any reasonable action that circumstances require to enable necessary operations of the Court of Appeals (COA) and the superior, justice and municipal courts in each COA division or county.

    2. Until Arizona enters Phase II and except where the size of the staff or other constraints will not allow, judicial leadership shall implement a staffing plan, which may include dividing personnel into two or more teams or using other methods to prevent all or a substantial portion of court personnel from becoming infected or requiring quarantine at the same time due to work-related contact. The presiding judge may exempt personnel who perform critical court functions from this provision if there is no practical alternative.

    3. Courts should modify operations to limit the number of transportation events to necessary in-court hearings for individuals in custody or receiving services pursuant to court order, including combining hearings subject to maximum gathering size required by this order, and to minimize mixing of populations to eliminate avoidable quarantines when such individuals are returned to custody following court hearings.

    4. Rule 10.2, Rules of Criminal Procedure; Rule 42.1, Rules of Civil Procedure; Rule 2(B), Rules of Procedure for Juvenile Court; Rule 6, Rules of Family Law Procedure; Rule 133(d), Justice Court Rules of Civil Procedure: Rule 9(c), Rules of Procedure for Eviction Actions; and any local rule that provides litigants with a change of judge as a matter of right, are suspended until December 31, 2020 to reduce the risk of virus exposure inherent in out-of-county judges’ travel, and to ensure adequate judicial resources for backlog reduction.

    5. Judicial leadership shall adopt practices following the gathering size and social distancing standards in Attachment A, considering the size of the courtrooms and other spaces where people gather in and around the courthouse. A court should not schedule in-person multiple, simultaneous proceedings that are inconsistent with these standards. Until Phase II, in extraordinary circumstances and with appropriate precautions, judicial leadership may authorize a maximum of 30 persons to gather in one location provided social distancing measures are taken. The intent of this requirement is to discourage scheduling of multiple court hearings at a single date and time. Courts should coordinate with law enforcement to require staggered citation appearance times.

    6. Judicial leadership must require all participants in court proceedings, including attorneys, parties, victims, witnesses, jurors, court personnel, and other necessary persons, to notify the court prior to appearing at the courthouse, of any COVID-19 diagnosis, symptoms, or exposure notification by public health authorities and to make alternative arrangements to participate.

    7. Until Phase III, judicial leadership should limit any required in-person proceedings to attorneys, parties, victims, witnesses, jurors, court personnel, and other necessary persons, where necessary to maintain the recommended social distancing within the courthouse, including each courtroom, and the judge in each proceeding is authorized to make reasonable orders to ensure the health and safety of hearing participants consistent with the parties’ right to due process of law.

    8. Judges shall liberally grant continuances and make accommodations, if necessary and possible, for attorneys, parties, victims, witnesses, jurors, and others with business before the courts who are at a high risk of illness from COVID-19 or who report any COVID-19 diagnosis, symptoms, or exposure notification by public health authorities.

    9. The Administrative Office of the Courts shall provide judicial leadership with a health screening protocol used to detect COVID-19-related symptoms consistent with recommendations by public health officials to prevent the spread of the virus. Through Phase I, judicial leadership should implement the COVID-19 screening protocol for court and judicial personnel. Not later than June 1, 2020, court staff and judicial officers shall wear their own or court-provided masks, face coverings, or face shields when having any in-person contact with other personnel or the public, or as allowed by section I(11).

    10. The Administrative Office of the Courts shall provide judicial leadership with a health screening protocol used to detect COVID-19-related symptoms consistent with recommendations by public health officials to prevent the spread of the virus. Through Phase I, judicial leadership should implement the COVID-19 screening protocol for the public. Through Phase I, and where courthouse entrance security screening is available, the COVID-19 screening protocol may require body temperature screening for the public. Judicial leadership shall require court participants and visitors to wear a mask or other face-covering in the courthouse beginning not later than June 1, 2020 and may

    provide the required face-covering for use by persons who do not have their own. Courts shall exclude persons from the courthouse who refuse to cooperate with or who do not pass established screening protocols or refuse to wear a mask or other face covering. Judicial leadership shall post these requirements at entrances and on their public website.

    11. During in-courtroom proceedings, the judge may authorize removal of masks or face coverings for purposes of witness testimony, defendant identification, making an appropriate record, or other reasons as deemed necessary by the judge provided that appropriate social distancing or other protective measures are followed.

    12. Judicial leadership should establish and implement social distancing and sanitation measures established by the United States Department of Labor and the CDC.

    II. TO USE TECHNOLOGY TO MINIMIZE IN-PERSON PROCEEDINGS:

    1. Proceedings in all Arizona appellate, superior, justice, juvenile, and municipal courts and before the presiding disciplinary judge may be held by teleconferencing or video conferencing, consistent with core constitutional rights.

    2. During Phases I and II, judicial leadership should limit in-person contact as much as possible by using available technologies, including alternative means of filing, teleconferencing, video conferencing, and use of email and text messages to reasonably ensure the health and safety of all participants.

    3. Judges may hold ex parte and contested hearings on orders of protection electronically.

    4. Judicial leadership may authorize the use of available online dispute resolution (ODR) platforms to resolve cases.

    5. Judicial leadership may authorize the use of electronic, digital, or other means regularly used in court proceedings to create a verbatim record, except in grand jury proceedings.

    6. When the public is limited from attending in-person proceedings, beginning July 1, 2020, to the extent logistically possible, the presiding judge of the superior court shall provide public access by video or audio to civil and criminal court proceedings typically open to the public to maximize the public’s ability to observe court proceedings. The presiding judge or single judge of a limited jurisdiction court should make video or audio proceedings, excluding small claims cases, available to the public to the greatest extent possible. The presiding judge of the superior court should also list the availability of video and audio proceedings on the AZCourt site.

    7. The 100-mile distance requirement for a limited jurisdiction court to accept a telephonic plea under Rule 17.1 (f) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure is suspended through December 31, 2020.

    8. Clerks may attend court proceedings by teleconferencing or video conferencing to comply with A.R.S. § 12-283(A)(1).

    9. Title 36 Chapter 5, A.R.S. matters are confidential and not open to persons other than the parties, witnesses, and their respective counsel. When these proceedings are not conducted in-person, judicial leadership must use technology in a manner that protects the patient’s rights to privacy and confidentiality.

    10. The judge in each proceeding conducted using video-conferencing may limit and permit recording as appropriate to apply the policies provided in Rule 122, Rules of the Supreme Court, to those proceedings.

    11. When conducting virtual hearings, courts may establish procedures to collect the defendant’s fingerprint, or to otherwise establish the defendants identity as an alternative means of complying with the procedures required by A.R.S. § 13-607 and Rule 26.10 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure.

    III. TO APPROPRIATELY PRIORITIZE CASE PROCESSING:

    1. Constitutional and statutory priorities for cases continue to apply unless otherwise waived.

    2. For cases where the right to a jury trial has not been waived, but where limits on courthouse facilities or judicial or court personnel capacity require prioritization and recognizing that constitutional and statutory preferences govern for specific issues raised in a specific case, cases shall be scheduled in the following order of priority:

    (a) Criminal felony and misdemeanor cases, where the defendant is in custody;

    (b) Sexually violent person trials;

    (c) Criminal felony cases, where the defendant is not in custody;

    (d) Criminal misdemeanor cases, where the defendant is not in custody; and

    (e) Civil and any other jury trial cases.

    3. Where limits on courthouse facilities or judicial, or court personnel capacity require prioritization and recognizing that constitutional and statutory preferences govern for specific issues raised in a specific case, cases shall be scheduled in the following order of priority:

    (a) Juvenile;

    (b) Criminal; 

    (c) Mental Health;

    (d) Family (involving minor children);

    (e) Family (not involving minor children);

    (f) Probate (involving protected persons);

    (g) Civil;

    (h) General Probate; and

    (i) Tax and Administrative cases.

    4. Where backlogs exist, judicial leadership should expand case disposition capacity, including calling back retired judges, using judges pro tempore and temporarily reassigning judges from other assignments.

    IV. TO SAFELY PROVIDE FOR JURY TRIALS AND GRAND JURIES:

    1. Trials of cases to a jury may resume when Arizona enters Phase I, but not prior to June 15, 2020.

    2. The presiding judge of the superior court in each county should determine when jury trials can safely begin, taking into consideration the physical space of individual courthouses and courtrooms. Judicial leadership shall employ appropriate social distancing and other measures necessary for the protection of jurors and the general public and shall post on court websites a schedule and information describing the protective measures taken.

    3. Until December 31, 2020, to reduce the number of citizens summoned to jury duty, procedural rules (including Rule 18.4(c), Rules of Criminal Procedure; Rule 47(e), Rules of Civil Procedure; and Rule 134(a)(1), Justice Court Rules of Civil Procedure) are modified to afford litigants only two peremptory strikes for potential jurors per side in all civil and felony cases tried in the superior court, and one peremptory strike per side in all misdemeanor cases, and all civil cases tried in limited jurisdiction courts. This provision does not apply to capital murder cases.

    4. To accommodate social distancing standards, courts may stagger times for prospective jurors to report for jury duty, direct them to individual courtrooms rather than jury assembly rooms, and conduct voir dire remotely or in multiple groups. At the direction of the presiding judge, prospective jurors may be summoned to non-courthouse facilities that can accommodate larger numbers of individuals.

    5. Judicial leadership may authorize the use of technology to facilitate alternatives to in-person appearance for selecting grand and petit jurors and for conducting grand jury proceedings, and with the permission of the presiding superior court judge, for jury trials.

    6. As required by A.R.S. § 21-202(b)(2), jury commissioners must temporarily excuse prospective jurors whose jury service would substantially and materially affect the public welfare in an adverse manner, including but not limited to those who report a COVID-19 diagnosis, symptoms, or notification by a public health official of exposure to COVID-19 and may temporarily excuse potential jurors who are highly vulnerable to COVID-19.

    7. The presiding judge of the superior court in coordination with the county attorney in each county may determine when grand juries can be resumed in a

    safe manner with proper social distancing. Grand jury selection may be conducted in-person by staggering the appearance of prospective jurors or by electronically screening them. The presiding judge may authorize grand jury proceedings to be held by video-conferencing.

    V. TO CALCULATE TIME CONSIDERING THE EMERGENCY:

    1. The period of March 18, 2020 through August 1, 2020 is excluded from calculation of time under rule provisions and statutory procedures that require court proceedings to be held within a specific period of time, including Rule 8, Rules of Criminal Procedure; Rules 17, 25, 79 and 100, Rules of Procedure for the Juvenile Court; Rules 2, 3, and 15, Rules of Procedure in Eviction Actions; and Rule 38.1(d)(2), Rules of Civil Procedure. A judge, pursuant to Rule 8, may extend this exclusion of time in criminal cases, for good cause including, but not limited to COVID-19 illness, quarantine and travel restrictions.

    2. The time for conducting preliminary hearings for in-custody defendants under Rule 5.1(a) and (d) and probation revocation arraignments under Rule 27.8 (a)(1), Rules of Criminal Procedure is extended to twenty (20) days from an initial appearance that occurs through July 3, 2020.

    3. Until August 1, 2020, notwithstanding Rule 6 (b)(2), Rules of Civil Procedure, in an individual case, the court may extend the time to act under Rules 50(b), 52(b), 59(b)(1), (c), and (d), and 60(c) as those rules allow, or alternatively, may extend the time to act under those rules for 30 days upon a showing of good cause.

    4. The following are not excluded from calculations of time:

    (a) For persons held in-custody: initial appearances, arraignments, preliminary hearings, in-custody probation violation, and conditions of release;

    (b) Domestic violence protective proceedings;

    (c) Child protection temporary custody proceedings;

    (d) Civil commitment hearings and reviews;

    (e) Emergency protection of elderly or vulnerable persons proceedings;

    (f) Habeas corpus proceedings;

    (g) COVID-19 public health emergency proceedings;

    (h) Juvenile detention hearings;

    (i) Election cases; and

    (j) Any other proceeding that is necessary to determine whether to grant emergency relief.

    5. For the period of March 18, 2020 through August 1, 2020, if a judge is unable to rule on a pending matter due to the judge’s illness or is otherwise unable to work, the judge is deemed to be physically disabled, and the period of time the judge is ill or unable to work is excluded from the calculation of the 60 days from the date of submission in which a matter must be determined under A.R.S. § 12-128.01 or § 11-424.02.

    VI. IN GENERAL:

    1. Court offices shall remain accessible to the public by telephone and email during their regular business hours to the greatest extent possible, including using drop boxes for documents that cannot be e-filed if it becomes necessary to close court offices to the public.

    2. During this period of reduced operations, courts and court clerks shall make reasonable efforts to provide alternative methods of accessing court records.

    3. Probation officers are authorized to use social distancing and technology of all types to supervise those on criminal and juvenile probation, including, where appropriate, for contacts with such individuals.

    4. Clerks of the court shall continue to issue marriage licenses and may do so remotely if the available technology allows licenses to be properly issued.

    5. A judge may perform a marriage ceremony at the courthouse with no more than 10 persons present with proper social distancing and may perform a marriage ceremony in the electronic presence of the couple and witnesses at the parties’ request.

    6. The Administrative Office of the Courts may use technology to ensure social distancing for its operations, including the Court Appointed Special Advocate program, the Foster Care Review Boards program, and the Certification and Licensing programs under Part 7, Chapter 2, of the Arizona Code of Judicial Administration.

    7. Limited jurisdiction judicial leadership may issue orders as necessary to implement the provisions of this order and take actions consistent with this order and orders issued by their presiding superior court judge.

    8. Judicial leadership must notify court customers, the public, and the Administrative Director of all administrative orders issued under the authorization provided by this order using the most effective means available. 

    9. Judicial leadership must provide information regarding court access and operations in both English and Spanish.

    10. The presiding superior court judge of a county and judges and staff in leadership in the limited jurisdiction courts in the county shall periodically meet to coordinate county-wide court activities impacted by the current COVID-19 crisis. Attendance at such properly scheduled meetings is mandatory unless excused by the county presiding judge.

    Dated this 20th day of May, 2020.

    FOR THE COURT:

    ___________________________________

    ROBERT BRUTINEL

    Chief Justice


    ATTACHMENT A

    Standards for Resumption of On-site Court Operations During a Public Health Emergency

    In planning for a phased resumption of on-site court operations, courts1 must consider the following factors:

    1. The status of the pandemic in each local court jurisdiction;

    2. The size and functionality of courthouse facilities, both in terms of courtrooms and other public meeting areas; and

    3. The size of the bench and supporting court staff.

    The timing of the phases will be largely determined by Arizona specific directives. The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) will notify the judicial leadership in advance of phase transition dates. Taking these factors into account, local courts should systematically resume on-site operations as follows:

    Phase Zero (Current Phase): Due to the statewide public health emergency, all in-person court proceedings should be avoided to the greatest extent possible, consistent with constitutional rights.

    • Courts should follow CDC social distancing guidelines and limit the number of persons at any court event to 10. Judicial leadership may authorize groups larger than 10, but not to exceed 30.
    • The empaneling of new petit juries is suspended.
    • In-person contact is to be limited through the use of virtual hearings (audio or video), electronic recording of court proceedings and electronic transmission of documents.
    • Certain state and local court rules are suspended or amended to maximize public safety.

    Phase I: Courts may begin transitioning to in-person proceedings to the extent this can be safely accomplished on June 1, 2020 in compliance with the following standards:

    • Courthouse Safety:

    o Until Arizona enters Phase II and except where the size of the staff or other constraints will not allow, judicial leadership shall implement a staffing plan, which may include dividing personnel into two or more teams or other methods to accomplish the goal of preventing all or a substantial portion of court personnel from becoming infected or requiring quarantine at the same time due to work-related contact.

    o Judicial leadership shall limit any required in-person proceedings to attorneys, parties, victims, witnesses, jurors, court personnel, and other necessary persons.

    1 In this attachment, courts include Arizona courts, Office of the Presiding Disciplinary Judge, and Court of Appeals.


    o Judicial leadership should modify operations to limit the number of transportation events to necessary in-court hearings for individuals in custody.

    o Courts should follow CDC social distancing guidelines and limit the number of persons at any court event to 10. Judicial leadership may authorize groups larger than 10, but not to exceed 30.

    o Courts shall utilize the AOC’s health screening protocol.

    o Courts shall require masks or face coverings to be worn in the courthouse.

    o Courts shall exclude persons failing the screening protocol from entry to the courthouse.

    o Rules which provide litigants a change of judge as a matter of right are suspended until December 31, 2020.

    o Courts shall exclude persons failing the screening protocol from entry to the courthouse and attempt to make alternative arrangements for them to conduct court business. If an excluded person is attempting to attend a scheduled court proceeding, the appropriate court shall be notified of the person’s inability to enter the courthouse.

    • Technology

    o Courts shall continue the use of virtual hearings, electronic recording and electronic transmission of documents.

    o Courts shall provide public access by video or audio to court proceedings which are typically open to the public, specifically for the case types designated in this Administrative Order.

    o Courts shall consider and encourage the use of on-line dispute resolution (ODR).

    • Appropriately Prioritize Case Processing

    o Courts shall follow the prioritization of case types, both for jury and non-jury cases.

    o Courts shall expand case disposition capacity, using retired judges and judges pro tempore and temporarily reassigning judges from other assignments.

    • Jury Trials and Grand Juries

    o Jury trials may resume on June 15, 2020, subject to the approval of the presiding superior court judge.

    o Courts shall utilize appropriate social distancing and measures necessary for the protection of jurors, including the use of technology for virtual selection of petit and grand jurors and conducting of grand jury proceedings and, with the approval of the presiding superior court judge, for jury trials.

    o The presiding superior court judge may determine when grand juries can be resumed.

    • In General

    o Courts may use drop boxes for filing documents that cannot be e-filed.

    Phase II: Scheduling of in-person court proceedings can resume, while limiting the projected number of courthouse visitors during peak times.

    • Courthouse Safety

    o On-site court staffing should systematically increase during Phase II, as necessary to serve the increased number of visitors at the courthouse. Courts should continue to maintain two or more teams, with some teams working at the courthouse while others work remotely, or otherwise ensure that an exposed employee will not interrupt the operations of the court.

    o Courts should follow CDC social distancing guidelines and limit the number of persons at any court event to 30. Judicial leadership may authorize groups larger than 30, but not to exceed 50.

    • Technology

    o The use of technology should continue, both to maximize public safety and to maximize efficiencies in court operations.

    • Appropriately Prioritize Case Processing

    o Some courts may no longer have a need to expand case disposition capacity.

    • The other Phase I provisions remain in effect during Phase II, specifically the sections of this Administrative Order regarding:
    • Jury Trials and Grand Juries
    • In General

    Phase III: Scheduling of in-person court proceedings and other on-site court services can fully resume, while limiting the projected number of courthouse visitors during peak times.

    • Courthouse Safety

    o On-site court staffing should be largely restored during this phase to serve the increased number of visitors at the courthouse. Courts may still opt to have some staff continue working remotely. These staff would be available for deployment to the courthouse in the event that on-site staff become infected.

    o Courts should follow CDC social distancing guidelines and limit the number of persons at any court event accordingly.

    o Consistent with guidance from CDC, courts may relax screening protocols for court participants and visitors, including the wearing of masks in the courthouse.

    • Technology

    o The use of technology should continue, both to maximize public safety and to achieve efficiencies in court operations.

    • Jury Trials and Grand Juries

    o Courts should continue to employ appropriate social distancing and other measures necessary for the protection of jurors, including the use of technology for virtual selection of petit and grand jurors and conducting of grand jury proceedings and, with the approval of the presiding superior court judge, for jury trials.

    • In General

    o Courts should continue to use drop boxes for documents that cannot be e-filed.

    Phase IV: Return to normal operations – no restrictions.


  • 10 May 2020 3:06 PM | Anonymous member (Administrator)

    Due to concern for the spread of COVID-19 in the general population, the Governor of the State of Arizona declared a statewide public health emergency on March 11, 2020 pursuant to A.R.S. § 26-303 and in accordance with A.R.S. § 26-301(15). Since March 18, 2020, several administrative orders have been issued in response to the COVID-19 public health threat that limited and modified court operations to ensure justice in Arizona is administered safely. The most recent such order, Administrative Order No. 2020-70 issued on April 24, 2020, directed Arizona’s courts to conduct business in a manner that reduced the risks associated with COVID-19. This order supersedes that administrative order and provides direction on transition to resumption of certain operations in an orderly way that prioritizes the safety of the public, judges, and employees of the judiciary.

    For the purposes of this order, the term “judicial leadership” refers, as applicable, to the chief judge of the court of appeals, the presiding superior court judge, the presiding judge of a limited jurisdiction court that has multiple judges, or, for limited jurisdiction courts that have only one judge, the judge of such court.

    Arizona courts remain open to serve the public. Nevertheless, given the ongoing threat to public safety, certain limitations and changes in court practices and operations are still necessary. These changes will occur in phases consistent with this order and the Standards in Attachment A.

    Therefore, pursuant to Article VI, Sections 3 and 5, of the Arizona Constitution,

    IT IS ORDERED that all Arizona Courts and the office of the presiding disciplinary judge may begin transitioning to in-person proceedings on June 1, 2020 to the extent this can be safely accomplished.

    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that presiding superior court judges continue to meet with local criminal justice system stakeholders to coordinate how best to handle the phasing-in of normal procedures in criminal proceedings, including resuming petit and grand jury proceedings.

    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that presiding superior court judges shall determine for the courts in their respective counties how in-person court proceedings and courthouse activities are to be phased-in and conducted, consistent with this order, in a manner that protects the health and safety of all participants. The chief judge of each court of appeals division shall determine how in-person court proceedings are to be phased-in and conducted.

    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

    I. TO PROTECT COURTHOUSE SAFETY:

    1. The presiding superior court judge of each county and the chief judge of each division of the court of appeals is authorized to adopt or suspend any local rule or order needed to address the current public health emergency in cooperation with public health officials and to take any reasonable action that circumstances require to enable necessary operations of the Court of Appeals (COA) and the superior, justice and municipal courts in each COA division or county.

    2. Until Arizona enters Phase II and except where the size of the staff or other constraints will not allow, judicial leadership shall implement a staffing plan, which may include dividing personnel into two or more teams or using other methods to prevent all or a substantial portion of court personnel from becoming infected or requiring quarantine at the same time due to work-related contact. The presiding judge may exempt personnel who perform critical court functions from this provision if there is no practical alternative.

    3. Courts should modify operations to limit the number of transportation events to necessary in-court hearings for individuals in custody or receiving services pursuant to court order, including combining hearings subject to maximum gathering size required by this order, and to minimize mixing of populations to eliminate avoidable quarantines when such individuals are returned to custody following court hearings.

    4. Rule 10.2, Rules of Criminal Procedure; Rule 42.1, Rules of Civil Procedure; Rule 2(B), Rules of Procedure for Juvenile Court; Rule 6, Rules of Family Law Procedure; and Rule 133(d), Justice Court Rules of Civil Procedure, all of which provide litigants with a change of judge as a matter of right, are suspended until December 31, 2020 to reduce the risk of virus exposure inherent in out-of-county judges’ travel, and to ensure adequate judicial resources for backlog reduction.

    5. Judicial leadership shall adopt practices following the gathering size and social distancing standards in Attachment A, considering the size of the courtrooms and other spaces where people gather in and around the courthouse. A court should not schedule in-person multiple, simultaneous proceedings that are inconsistent with these standards. Until Phase II, in extraordinary circumstances and with appropriate precautions, judicial leadership may authorize a maximum of 30 persons to gather in one location provided social distancing measures are taken. The intent of this requirement is to discourage scheduling of multiple court hearings at a single date and time. Courts should coordinate with law enforcement to require staggered citation appearance times.

    6. Judicial leadership must require all participants in court proceedings, including attorneys, parties, victims, witnesses, jurors, court personnel, and other necessary persons, to notify the court prior to appearing at the courthouse, of any COVID-19 diagnosis, symptoms, or exposure notification by public health authorities and to make alternative arrangements to participate.

    7. Until Phase III, judicial leadership should limit any required in-person proceedings to attorneys, parties, victims, witnesses, jurors, court personnel, and other necessary persons, where necessary to maintain the recommended social distancing within the courthouse, including each courtroom, and the judge in each proceeding is authorized to make reasonable orders to ensure the health and safety of hearing participants consistent with the parties’ right to due process of law.

    8. Judges shall liberally grant continuances and make accommodations, if necessary and possible, for attorneys, parties, victims, witnesses, jurors, and others with business before the courts who are at a high risk of illness from COVID-19 or who report any COVID-19 diagnosis, symptoms, or exposure notification by public health authorities.

    9. The Administrative Office of the Courts shall provide judicial leadership with a health screening protocol used to detect COVID-19-related symptoms consistent with recommendations by public health officials to prevent the spread of the virus. Through Phase I, judicial leadership should implement the COVID-19 screening protocol for court and judicial personnel. Not later than June 1, 2020, court staff and judicial officers shall wear their own or court-provided masks, face coverings, or face shields when having any in-person contact with other personnel or the public, or as allowed by section I(11).

    10. The Administrative Office of the Courts shall provide judicial leadership with a health screening protocol used to detect COVID-19-related symptoms consistent with recommendations by public health officials to prevent the spread of the virus. Through Phase I, judicial leadership should implement the COVID-19 screening protocol for the public. Through Phase I, and where courthouse entrance security screening is available, the COVID-19 screening protocol may require body temperature screening for the public. Judicial leadership shall require court participants and visitors to wear their own or a court-provided mask or other face-covering in the courthouse beginning not later than June 1, 2020. Courts shall exclude persons from the courthouse who refuse to cooperate with or who do not pass established screening protocols or refuse to wear a mask or face covering. Judicial leadership shall post these requirements at entrances and on their public website.

    11. During in-courtroom proceedings, the judge may authorize removal of masks or face coverings for purposes of witness testimony, defendant identification, making an appropriate record, or other reasons as deemed necessary by the judge provided that appropriate social distancing or other protective measures are followed.

    12. Judicial leadership should establish and implement social distancing and sanitation measures established by the United States Department of Labor and the CDC.

    II. TO USE TECHNOLOGY TO MINIMIZE IN-PERSON PROCEEDINGS:

    1. Proceedings in all Arizona appellate, superior, justice, juvenile, and municipal courts and before the presiding disciplinary judge may be held by teleconferencing or video conferencing, consistent with core constitutional rights.

    2. During Phases I and II, judicial leadership should limit in-person contact as much as possible by using available technologies, including alternative means of filing, teleconferencing, video conferencing, and use of email and text messages to reasonably ensure the health and safety of all participants.

    3. Judges may hold ex parte and contested hearings on orders of protection electronically.

    4. Judicial leadership may authorize the use of available online dispute resolution (ODR) platforms to resolve cases.

    5. Judicial leadership may authorize the use of electronic, digital, or other means regularly used in court proceedings to create a verbatim record, except in grand jury proceedings.

    6. When the public is limited from attending in-person proceedings, beginning July 1, 2020, to the extent logistically possible, the presiding judge of the superior court shall provide public access by video or audio to civil and criminal court proceedings typically open to the public to maximize the public’s ability to observe court proceedings. The presiding judge or single judge of a limited jurisdiction court should make video and audio proceedings, excluding small claims cases, available to the public to the greatest extent possible. The presiding judge of the superior court should also list the availability of video and audio proceedings on the AZCourt site.

    7. The 100-mile distance requirement for a limited jurisdiction court to accept a telephonic plea under Rule 17.1 (f) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure is suspended through December 31, 2020.

    8. Clerks may attend court proceedings by teleconferencing or video conferencing to comply with A.R.S. § 12-283(A)(1).

    9. Title 36 Chapter 5, A.R.S. matters are confidential and not open to persons other than the parties, witnesses, and their respective counsel. When these proceedings are not conducted in-person, judicial leadership must use technology in a manner that protects the patient’s rights to privacy and confidentiality.

    10. The judge in each proceeding conducted using video-conferencing may limit and permit recording as appropriate to apply the policies provided in Rule 122, Rules of the Supreme Court, to those proceedings.

    III. TO APPROPRIATELY PRIORITIZE CASE PROCESSING:

    1. Constitutional and statutory priorities for cases continue to apply unless otherwise waived.

    2. For cases where the right to a jury trial has not been waived, but where limits on courthouse facilities or judicial or court personnel capacity require prioritization and recognizing that constitutional and statutory preferences govern for specific issues raised in a specific case, cases shall be scheduled in the following order of priority:

    (a) Criminal felony and misdemeanor cases, where the defendant is in custody;

    (b) Sexually violent person trials;

    (c) Criminal felony cases, where the defendant is not in custody;

    (d) Criminal misdemeanor cases, where the defendant is not in custody; and

    (e) Civil and any other jury trial cases.

    3. Where limits on courthouse facilities or judicial, or court personnel capacity require prioritization and recognizing that constitutional and statutory preferences govern for specific issues raised in a specific case, cases shall be scheduled in the following order of priority:

    (a) Juvenile;

    (b) Criminal;

    (c) Mental Health;

    (d) Family (involving minor children);

    (e) Family (not involving minor children);

    (f) Probate (involving protected persons);

    (g) Civil;

    (h) General Probate; and

    (i) Tax and Administrative cases.

    4. Where backlogs exist, judicial leadership should expand case disposition capacity, including calling back retired judges, using judges pro tempore and temporarily reassigning judges from other assignments.

    IV. TO SAFELY PROVIDE FOR JURY TRIALS AND GRAND JURIES:

    1. Trials of cases to a jury may resume when Arizona enters Phase I, but not prior to June 15, 2020.

    2. The presiding judge of the superior court in each county should determine when jury trials can safely begin, taking into consideration the physical space of individual courthouses and courtrooms. Judicial leadership shall employ appropriate social distancing and other measures necessary for the protection of jurors and the general public and shall post on court websites a schedule and information describing the protective measures taken.

    3. Until December 31, 2020, to reduce the number of citizens summoned to jury duty, procedural rules (including Rule 18.4(c), Rules of Criminal Procedure; Rule 47(e), Rules of Civil Procedure; and Rule 134(a)(1), Justice Court Rules of Civil Procedure) are modified to afford litigants only two peremptory strikes for potential jurors per side in all civil and felony cases tried in the superior court, and one peremptory strike per side in all misdemeanor cases, and all civil cases tried in limited jurisdiction courts. This provision does not apply to capital murder cases.

    4. To accommodate social distancing standards, courts may stagger times for prospective jurors to report for jury duty, direct them to individual courtrooms rather than jury assembly rooms, and conduct voir dire remotely or in multiple groups. At the direction of the presiding judge, prospective jurors may be summoned to non-courthouse facilities that can accommodate larger numbers of individuals.

    5. Judicial leadership may authorize the use of technology to facilitate alternatives to in-person appearance for selecting grand and petit jurors and for conducting grand jury proceedings, and with the permission of the presiding superior court judge, for jury trials.

    6. As required by A.R.S. § 21-202(b)(2), jury commissioners must temporarily excuse prospective jurors whose jury service would substantially and materially affect the public welfare in an adverse manner, including but not limited to those who report a COVID-19 diagnosis, symptoms, or notification by a public health official of exposure to COVID-19 and may temporarily excuse potential jurors who are highly vulnerable to COVID-19.

    7. The presiding judge of the superior court in coordination with the county attorney in each county may determine when grand juries can be resumed in a safe manner with proper social distancing. Grand jury selection may be conducted in-person by staggering the appearance of prospective jurors or by electronically screening them. The presiding judge may authorize grand jury proceedings to be held by video-conferencing.

    V. TO CALCULATE TIME CONSIDERING THE EMERGENCY:

    1. The period of March 18, 2020 through August 1, 2020 is excluded from calculation of time under rule provisions and statutory procedures that require court proceedings to be held within a specific period of time, including Rule 8, Rules of Criminal Procedure; Rules 17, 25, 79 and 100, Rules of Procedure for the Juvenile Court; Rules 2, 3, and 15, Rules of Procedure in Eviction Actions; and Rule 38.1(d)(2), Rules of Civil Procedure. A judge, pursuant to Rule 8, may extend this exclusion of time in criminal cases, for good cause including, but not limited to COVID-19 illness, quarantine and travel restrictions.

    2. The time for conducting preliminary hearings for in-custody defendants under Rule 5.1(a) and (d) and probation revocation arraignments under Rule 27.8 (a)(1), Rules of Criminal Procedure is extended to twenty (20) days from an initial appearance that occurs through July 3, 2020.

    3. Until August 1, 2020, notwithstanding Rule 6 (b)(2), Rules of Civil Procedure, in an individual case, the court may extend the time to act under Rules 50(b), 52(b), 59(b)(1), (c), and (d), and 60(c) as those rules allow, or alternatively, may extend the time to act under those rules for 30 days upon a showing of good cause.

    4. The following are not excluded from calculations of time:

    (a) For persons held in-custody: initial appearances, arraignments, preliminary hearings, in-custody probation violation, and conditions of release;

    (b) Domestic violence protective proceedings;

    (c) Child protection temporary custody proceedings;

    (d) Civil commitment hearings and reviews;

    (e) Emergency protection of elderly or vulnerable persons proceedings;

    (f) Habeas corpus proceedings;

    (g) COVID-19 public health emergency proceedings;

    (h) Juvenile detention hearings;

    (i) Election cases; and

    (j) Any other proceeding that is necessary to determine whether to grant emergency relief.

    5. For the period of March 18, 2020 through August 1, 2020, if a judge is unable to rule on a pending matter due to the judge’s illness or is otherwise unable to work, the judge is deemed to be physically disabled, and the period of time the judge is ill or unable to work is excluded from the calculation of the 60 days from the date of submission in which a matter must be determined under A.R.S. § 12-128.01 or § 11-424.02.

    VI. IN GENERAL:

    1. Court offices shall remain accessible to the public by telephone and email during their regular business hours to the greatest extent possible, including using drop boxes for documents that cannot be e-filed if it becomes necessary to close court offices to the public.

    2. During this period of reduced operations, courts and court clerks shall make reasonable efforts to provide alternative methods of accessing court records.

    3. Probation officers are authorized to use social distancing and technology of all types to supervise those on criminal and juvenile probation, including, where appropriate, for contacts with such individuals.

    4. Clerks of the court shall continue to issue marriage licenses and may do so remotely if the available technology allows licenses to be properly issued.

    5. A judge may perform a marriage ceremony at the courthouse with no more than 10 persons present with proper social distancing and may perform a marriage ceremony in the electronic presence of the couple and witnesses at the parties’ request.

    6. The Administrative Office of the Courts may use technology to ensure social distancing for its operations, including the Court Appointed Special Advocate program, the Foster Care Review Boards program, and the Certification and Licensing programs under Part 7, Chapter 2, of the Arizona Code of Judicial Administration.

    7. Limited jurisdiction judicial leadership may issue orders as necessary to implement the provisions of this order and take actions consistent with this order and orders issued by their presiding superior court judge.

    8. Judicial leadership must notify court customers, the public, and the Administrative Director of all administrative orders issued under the authorization provided by this order using the most effective means available.

    9. Judicial leadership must provide information regarding court access and operations in both English and Spanish.

    10. The presiding superior court judge of a county and judges and staff in leadership in the limited jurisdiction courts in the county shall periodically meet to coordinate county-wide court activities impacted by the current COVID-19 crisis. Attendance at such properly scheduled meetings is mandatory unless excused by the county presiding judge.

    Dated this 8th day of May, 2020.

    FOR THE COURT:

    ___________________________________

    ROBERT BRUTINEL

    Chief Justice


  • 29 Apr 2020 10:27 AM | Anonymous member (Administrator)

    Due to concern for the spread of COVID-19 in the general population, the Governor of the State of Arizona declared a statewide emergency pursuant to A.R.S. § 26-303 and in accordance with A.R.S. § 26-301(15). On March 18, 2020, Administrative Order No. 2020-48 directed Arizona’s courts to conduct business in a manner that reduces the risk associated with this public health emergency. This order revises, clarifies, and adds to that direction.

    Arizona Courts remain open to serve the public. Nevertheless, given the current emergency, and in the interest of public safety, certain limitations and changes in court practices are necessary. It is anticipated that Arizona courts will be able to begin a phased-in approach to conducting in person hearings and jury trials in late Spring or early Summer. An order providing for that transition will be issued soon. Until that time, it is necessary to extend the duration of the provisions of Administrative Order No. 2020-60.

    Therefore, pursuant to Article VI, Sections 3 and 5, of the Arizona Constitution,

    IT IS ORDERED that all in-person proceedings in all Arizona appellate, superior, justice and municipal courts and before the presiding disciplinary judge be avoided to the greatest extent possible consistent with core constitutional rights until further order of this court.

    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that empaneling of new petit juries scheduled through June 1, 2020 be rescheduled.

    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the presiding superior court judge of each county shall determine how any in-person court proceedings are to be conducted in each of the county’s court rooms, under conditions that protect the health and safety of all participants including:

    (a) Limiting in-person contact as much as possible by using available technologies, including alternative means of filing, teleconferencing, video conferencing, and use of email and text messages and issuing orders to reasonably ensure the health and safety of all participants.

    (b) Following CDC social distancing recommendations, considering the size of the court facility. Courts shall not schedule multiple, simultaneous hearings in a number that prevents appropriate social distancing, considering the size of the courtroom, and in no event shall a court schedule more than 10 persons at one time. Requiring all scheduled participants to notify the court of any COVID-19 symptoms or suspected exposure and to refrain from coming to the courthouse. The intent of this order is to discourage the use of large group scheduling of court hearings. However, in extraordinary circumstances, and with appropriate precautions, the presiding judge may authorize groups larger than 10 but in no event larger than 25.

    (c) Limiting any required in-person proceedings to attorneys, parties, victims, witnesses, jurors, court personnel, and other necessary persons, where necessary to maintain the recommended social distancing within a court facility, and authorizing trial judges to make reasonable orders to ensure the health and safety of hearing participants consistent with the parties’ right to due process of law.

    (d) Liberally granting continuances and additional accommodations to parties, witnesses, attorneys, jurors and others with business before the courts who are at a high risk of illness from COVID-19.

    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the presiding superior court judge continue to meet with local criminal justice system stakeholders to coordinate how best to handle criminal proceedings, including grand jury proceedings, for the duration of this health emergency.

    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, until further order, the presiding superior court judge of each county is authorized to adopt or suspend any local rules and orders needed to address the current public health emergency in cooperation with public health officials and to take any reasonable action that the circumstances require to enable necessary operations of the superior, justice and municipal courts in each county.

    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any court rule that impedes a judge’s or court clerk’s ability to use available technologies to eliminate or limit in-person contact in the conduct of court business is suspended through June 1, 2020, except such suspension is subject to constitutional requirements. Judges may hold ex parte hearings on orders of protection telephonically.

    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if it becomes necessary to close court offices to the public during the period of suspension, these offices shall remain accessible to the public by telephone and email during their regular business hours to the greatest extent possible, including using drop boxes for documents that cannot be e-filed.

    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that for the period March 18, 2020 through June 1, 2020 if a judge is unable to rule on a pending matter due to illness or is otherwise unable to work, the judge is deemed to be physically disabled and therefore that period is excluded from the calculation of the 60 days from the date of submission in which a matter must be determined under ARS § 12-128.01 or § 11-424.02.

    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the period March 18, 2020 through June 1, 2020:

    (a) Is excluded from calculation of time under rule provisions and statutory procedures that require court proceedings to be held within a specific period of time, including Rule 8, Rules of Criminal Procedure; Rules 17, 79 and 100, Rules of Procedure for the Juvenile Court; Rules 2 and 3, Rules of Procedure in Eviction Actions and Rule 38.1(d)(2), Rules of Civil Procedure. A judge, pursuant to Rule 8, may extend this exclusion of time in criminal cases, for good cause.

    (b) Is not excluded from calculation of time for:

    The following proceedings for persons held in-custody: initial appearances, arraignments, preliminary hearings, in-custody probation violation, and conditions of release;

    Domestic violence protective proceedings;

    Child protection temporary custody proceedings;

    Civil commitment hearings and reviews;

    Emergency protection of elderly or vulnerable persons proceedings;

    Habeas corpus proceedings;

    COVID-19 public health emergency proceedings;

    Juvenile detention hearings;

    Election cases; and

    Any other proceeding that is necessary to determine whether to grant emergency relief.

    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerks of the court shall continue to issue marriage licenses and may do so remotely if the available technology allows licenses to be properly issued. A judge may perform a marriage ceremony at the courthouse with no more than 10 persons present with proper social distancing.

    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the time for conducting Preliminary Hearings for in-custody defendants under Rule 5.1(a) and (d) and Probation Revocation Arraignments under Rule 27.8 (a)(1) of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure is extended to twenty (20) days from an initial appearance that occurs through June 1, 2020.

    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that electronic, digital or other means regularly used in court proceedings may be used to create a verbatim record, except in grand jury proceedings, notwithstanding a party’s request that the proceedings be recorded by a certified court reporter.

    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, until June 1, 2020, notwithstanding Rule 6 (b)(2), Rules Civil Procedure that in an individual case the court may extend the time to act under Rules 50(b), 52(b), 59(b)(1), (c), and (d), and 60(c) as those rules allow, or alternatively, may extend the time to act under those rules for 30 days upon a showing of good cause.

    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the presiding superior court judge notify court customers, the public, and the Administrative Director of all administrative orders issued under the authorization provided by this order using the most effective means available.

    Dated this 24th day of April, 2020.

    _______________________________

    ROBERT BRUTINEL

    Chief Justice


  • 20 Mar 2020 1:00 PM | Anonymous member (Administrator)

    Due to concern for the spread of COVID-19 in the general population, the Governor of the State of Arizona declared a statewide emergency pursuant to A.R.S. § 26-303 and in accordance with A.R.S. §26-301(15). On March 16, 2020, Administrative Order No. 2020-47 directed Arizona’s courts to conduct business in a manner that reduces the risk associated with this public health emergency. This order revises, clarifies and adds to that direction.

    Arizona Courts remain open to serve the public. Nevertheless, given the current emergency, and in the interest of public safety, certain limitations and changes in court practices are necessary.

    Therefore, pursuant to Article VI, Sections 3 and 5, of the Arizona Constitution,

    IT IS ORDERED that all in-person proceedings in all Arizona appellate, superior, justice and municipal courts and before the presiding disciplinary judge be avoided to the greatest extent possible consistent with core constitutional rights until further order of this court.

    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that empaneling of new petit juries scheduled for March 18, 2020 through April 17, 2020 be rescheduled.

    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the presiding superior court judge of each county shall determine how any in-person court proceedings are to be conducted in each of the county’s court rooms, under conditions that protect the health and safety of all participants including:

    (a) Limiting in-person courtroom contact as much as possible by using available technologies, including alternative means of filing, teleconferencing, video conferencing, and use of email and text messages and issuing orders to reasonably ensure the health and safety of all participants.

    (b) Following CDC social distancing recommendations, considering the size of the court facility. Courts shall not schedule multiple, simultaneous hearings in a number that prevents appropriate social distancing, considering the size of the courtroom, and in no event shall a court schedule more than 10 persons at one time. Requiring all scheduled participants to notify the court of any COVID-19 symptoms or suspected exposure and to refrain from coming to the courthouse. The intent of this order is to discourage the use of large group scheduling of court hearings. However, in extraordinary circumstances, and with appropriate precautions, the presiding judge may authorize groups larger than 10 but in no event larger than 25.

    (c) Limiting any required in-person proceedings to attorneys, parties, victims, witnesses, jurors, court personnel, and other necessary persons, where necessary to maintain the recommended social distancing within a court facility, and may authorize trial judges to make reasonable orders to ensure the health and safety of hearing participants consistent with the parties’ right to due process of law.

    (d) Liberally granting continuances and additional accommodations to parties, witnesses, attorneys, jurors and others with business before the courts who are at a high risk of illness from COVID-19.

    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the presiding superior court judge meet as soon as possible with local criminal justice system stake holders to coordinate how best to handle criminal proceedings, including grand jury proceedings, for the duration of this health emergency.

    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, until further order, the presiding superior court judge of each county is authorized to adopt or suspend any local rules and orders needed to address the current public health emergency in cooperation with public health officials and to take any reasonable action that the circumstances require to enable necessary operations of the superior, justice and municipal courts in each county.

    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any court rule that impedes a judge’s or court clerk’s ability to use available technologies to eliminate or limit in-person contact in the conduct of court business is suspended through April 17, 2020, except such suspension is subject to constitutional requirements. Judges may hold ex parte hearings on orders of protection telephonically.

    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if it becomes necessary to close court offices to the public during the period of suspension, these offices shall remain accessible to the public by telephone and email during their regular business hours to the greatest extent possible, including using drop boxes for documents that cannot be e-filed.

    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that for the period March 18, 2020 through April 17, 2020 if a judge is unable to rule on a pending matter due to illness or is otherwise unable to work, the judge is deemed to be physically disabled and therefore that period is excluded from the calculation of the 60 days from the date of submission in which a matter must be determined under ARS § 12-128.01 or § 11-424.02.

    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the period March 18, 2020 through April 17, 2020:

    (a) Is excluded from calculation of time under rule provisions and statutory procedures that require court proceedings to be held within a specific period of time, including Rule 8, Rules of Criminal Procedure; Rules 17, 79 and 100, Rules of Procedure for the Juvenile Court; and Rules 2 and 3, Rules of Procedure in Eviction Actions. A judge, pursuant to Rule 8, may extend this exclusion of time in criminal cases, for good cause.

    (b) Is not excluded from calculation for:

    The following proceedings for persons held in-custody: initial appearances, arraignments, preliminary hearings, and conditions of release;

    Domestic violence protective proceedings;

    Child protection temporary custody proceedings;

    Civil commitment hearings and reviews;

    Emergency protection of elderly or vulnerable persons proceedings;

    Habeas corpus proceedings;

    COVID-19 public health emergency proceedings;

    Juvenile detention hearings; and

    Any other proceeding that is necessary to determine whether to grant emergency relief.

    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerks of the court shall continue to issue marriage licenses, and a judge may perform a marriage ceremony at the courthouse, so long as no more than 10 persons are present.

    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the presiding superior court judge notify court customers, the public, and the Administrative Director of all administrative orders issued under the authorization provided by this order using the most effective means available.

    Dated this 18th day of March 2020.

    ___________________________________

    ROBERT BRUTINEL

    Chief Justice


  • 17 Mar 2020 10:12 AM | Anonymous member (Administrator)

    Due to concern for the spread of COVID-19 in the general population, the Governor of the State of Arizona has declared a statewide emergency pursuant to A.R.S. § 26-303 and in accordance with A.R.S. §26-301(15). Although Arizona’s courts remain open for business, cooperation by the Judicial Branch is essential to reducing the risk associated with this public health emergency.

    Therefore, pursuant to Article VI, Sections 3 and 5, of the Arizona Constitution,

    IT IS ORDERED that all in-person proceedings in all Arizona appellate, superior, justice and municipal courts and before the presiding disciplinary judge be avoided to the greatest extent possible consistent with core constitutional rights until further order of this court.

    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that empaneling of new petit and grand juries scheduled for March 16, 2020 through March 31, 2020 be rescheduled.

    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the presiding superior court judge of each county shall determine how any in-person court proceedings are to be conducted in each of the county’s court rooms, under conditions that protect the health and safety of all participants including:

    (a) Limiting in-person courtroom contact as much as possible by using available technologies, including alternative means of filing, teleconferencing, video conferencing, and use of email and text messages.

    (b) Following CDC social distancing recommendations, considering the size of the court facility. Courts shall not schedule multiple, simultaneous hearings in a number that prevents appropriate social distancing, considering the size of the courtroom and in no event shall a court schedule more than 50 persons at one time. Requiring all scheduled participants to notify the court of any COVID-19 symptoms or suspected exposure and to refrain from coming to the courthouse.

    (c) Limiting any required in-person proceedings to attorneys, parties, victims, witnesses, jurors, court personnel, and other necessary persons, where necessary to maintain the recommended social distancing within a court facility.

    (d) Liberally granting continuances and additional accommodations to parties, witnesses, attorneys, jurors and others with business before the courts who are at a high risk of illness from COVID-19.

    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, until further order, the presiding superior court judge of

    each county is authorized to adopt or suspend any local rules and orders needed to address the current public health emergency in cooperation with public health officials and to take any reasonable action that the circumstances require to enable necessary operations of the superior, justice and municipal courts in each county.

    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any court rule that impedes a judge’s or court clerk’s ability to use available technologies to eliminate or limit in-person contact in the conduct of court business is suspended through March 31, 2020, except such suspension is subject to constitutional requirements. Judges may hold ex parte hearings on orders of protection telephonically.

    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if it becomes necessary to close court offices to the public during the period of suspension, these offices shall remain accessible to the public by telephone and email during their regular business hours to the greatest extent possible, including using drop boxes for documents that cannot be e-filed.

    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that for the period March 16, 2020 through March 31, 2020 if a judge is unable to rule on a pending matter due to illness or is otherwise unable to work, the judge is deemed to be physically disabled and therefore that period is excluded from the calculation of the 60 days from the date of submission in which a matter must be determined under ARS §12-128.01 or §11-424.02.

    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that for the period March 16, 2020 through March 31, 2020:

    (a) Time is excluded for the purposes of calculating time under Rule 6, Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 8, Rules of Criminal Procedure Rules 17 and 100, Rules of Procedure for the Juvenile Court Rules 2 and 3, Rules of Procedure in Eviction Actions and any other rule provisions or statutory procedures concerning when court proceedings are held. A judge in an appropriate case may extend this exclusion of time for good cause.

    (b) Time is not excluded for:

    Adult in-custody initial appearances, arraignments, preliminary hearings and conditions of release proceedings;

    Domestic violence protective proceedings;

    Child protection temporary custody proceedings;

    Civil commitment hearings and reviews;

    Emergency protection of elderly or vulnerable persons proceedings;

    Habeas corpus proceedings;

    COVID-19 public health emergency proceedings;

    Juvenile detention hearings;

    Any other proceeding that is necessary to determine whether to grant emergency relief.

    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the presiding superior court judge notify court customers, the public, and the Administrative Director of all administrative orders issued under the authorization provided by this order using the most effective means available.

    Dated this 16th day of March, 2020.

    ___________________________________

    Robert Brutinel

    Chief Justice


  • 16 Mar 2020 1:17 PM | Anonymous member (Administrator)

    Use the link below to access the Arizona Judicial Council - Thursday, March 19, 2020 meeting information.

     

    https://www.azcourts.gov/ajc/Current-Meeting-Information


  • 02 Jan 2020 12:43 PM | Anonymous member (Administrator)


    Arizona Judicial Council

    December 2019

     

     

     

    The Arizona Judicial Council met on Thursday, December 12, 2019 at the State Courts Building. Agendas and meeting information is available at https://www.azcourts.gov/ajc/Current-Meeting-Information.

     

    The Council thanked Amy Love, Legislative Officer for her dedication and service to the Arizona Judicial Council.  She will leave the AOC at the end of the year and take a Community Relations position at the Maricopa County Superior Court.

                       2020 Meetings Dates
         Thursday, March 19, 2020 - Phoenix
         Monday, June 22, 2020 – Tucson
         Thursday, October 22, 2020 – Flagstaff
         Thursday, December 10, 2020 - Phoenix


     

    Arizona Commission on Access to Justice Update and Annual Report
    Judge Larry Winthrop, Chair of the Commission on Access to Justice summarized the 2019 Commission Annual Report and provided an update on the anticipated and continuing projects for 2020.   The Commission will continue to partner with the Public Information and Messaging Workgroup (PIM) to provide public awareness and resources in 2020 on consumer debt and debt collection actions.  In 2019, PIM took on marketing and campaign efforts for eviction actions.  The Commission will also work with the Task Force on Delivery of Legal Services on the approved recommendations to offer legal assistance at a lower cost and provide more court navigator programs.
    Judge Winthrop noted that the Commission will have a leadership change in 2020.
    The Council thanked Judge Winthrop for his many years of leadership on the Commission.

    Implementation of the Mental Health Task Force Recommendations
    Marcus Reinkensmeyer, Court Services Division Director presented background information on the Task Force and provided the 25 recommendations that were approved at the October 2019 Council meeting.  He sought council support for legislative proposal 2020-17: Appointment of Experts; Misdemeanors, which amends language to permit one or more doctor(s) for misdemeanor Rule 11 cases at the discretion of the court.

    The Council supports as presented.

    A Mental Health Summit is also scheduled for March 2020.

    Update on IV-E Funding
    Caroline Lautt-Owens, Dependent Children Services Division Director updated the Council on recent federal changes in policy regarding Title IV-E Reimbursement (social security act) for child/parent representation in child welfare cases.  She explained that the intended impact will enhance representation and parents and youths will be more engaged.

    Arizona Violent Offense List for PSA Scoring and OST
    Kathy Waters, Adult Probation Services Division Director requested the Council’s approval to add two new crimes to the Arizona Violent Offense List for Public Safety Assessment (PSA), on behalf of Pima County.  The requested additions are:
    - Depositing Explosives (A.R.A. 13-3104)
    - Unlawful Mutilation (A.R.S. 13-1214)

    The Council supports the additions.

     

    FROST Risk Assessments Cut-Off Scores
    Kathy Waters next presented the research and recommended changes to the adjustment of the Field Reassessment Offender Screening Tool (FROST) risk assessments cut-off scores for supervision of adult probationers.

    The Council supports the changes as presented.

    Judicial Branch Legislative Package
    The Government Affairs Group presented the following 2020 legislative proposals for Council approval.

    -           Clerk of the Superior Court; Salary – Council supports

    -           Commission on Judicial Conduct; Clerk of the Superior Court - Council supports to withdraw the Clerk’s proposal and work with stakeholders to adopt a code of conduct for Clerks of Court, establish a Clerk Ethics Board, and create a training program for Clerks, Deputy Clerks and Supervisors

    -           General Stream Adjunctions – Council supports in concept

    -           Surcharge Distribution – Council supports

    FASTAR Pilot Program
    Judge Jeffery Bergin gave the second report on the FASTER Pilot program in Pima County.
    The Second Progress Report to the AJC Regarding the 
    FASTER Pilot is available here.

    Arizona Youth Assessment System (AZYAS)
    Joe Kelroy, Juvenile Justice Services Division Director presented on the recent changes to the Arizona Youth Assessment System (AZYAS).  AZYAS was approved for statewide use in 2013 by the Arizona Judicial Council.  In 2019, the University of Cincinnati Corrections Institute conducted a study that determines AZYAS is a reliable and valid tool.  Recommendations from the study suggest moving cut-off scores downward.

    The Council supports the recommendations to adjust the cut-off scores for the risk categories.

    Arizona Code of Judicial Administration (ACJA)
    Amendments to ACJA code sections were presented.

    ACJA § 6-105.01: Powers and Duties of Officers Evidence Based Practices – The Council supports
    ACJA § 6-201.01: Standard Probation Evidence Based Practice (amendment) – The Council supports
    ACJA § 6-202.01: Adult Intensive Probation Evidence-Based Practices (amendment) – The Council supports

    ACJA § 5-301: Court Security Standards (new) – The Council supports

    ACJA § 5-302: Court Security Officer Powers and Duties (new) – The Council supports

    ACJA § 5-303: Personnel Practices (new) – The Council supports

    ACJA § 5-304: Certification and Training (new) – The Council supports
    ACJA § 5-305: Use of Force (new) – The Council supports
    ACJA § 5-306: Firearms (new) – The Council supports
    ACJA § 5-307: Use of Conducted Electrical Weapons (new) – The Council supports as presented with the understanding that adjustments will be made before the Chief Justice approves the code as well as possible refinement and clarification for requirements for armed and non-armed contract security staff which would be presented at the March 2020 Council meeting.

     

     

     

    Alicia Moffatt

    Arizona Supreme Court

    Communications Specialist
    602-452-3665

    amoffatt@courts.az.gov


  • 17 Sep 2019 1:45 PM | Anonymous member (Administrator)

    From: Jeff Fine (COC) 
    Sent: Monday, September 16, 2019 2:55 PM
    To: Joseph Welty (SUP) ; Raymond Billotte (SUP) ; Byers, Dave 
    Cc: Reinkensmeyer, Marcus 
    Subject: FYI - New Warrant Payment Scam, Impersonating Court Officials

    Judge Welty, Mr. Byers and Mr. Billotte,

    Good afternoon. I hope all is well with you.

    I am writing to advise of a new scam and criminal strategy that has come to our attention involving individuals pretending to be court officials. Although similar scams have existed for years, the complexity of such appears to have increased. What my team has discovered is that scammers are contacting citizens by email pretending to be court officials, advising victims that a warrant exists for their arrest and to resolve the matter by mailing a payment in the form of prepaid debit cards. The scammers are using names such as mine in their baiting email messages, attaching fake court documents and asking individuals to take pictures of the debit cards and email the images in advance of mailing. Victims are advised to mail the cards to a valid court address such as ours, lending to the perceived credibility of the process while scammers use the info from the photos to obtain funds immediately. The empty debit cards then arrive at a government office such as ours days later.

    The Clerk Team here in Maricopa County is working with law enforcement to investigate and contacting media outlets to promote awareness. Please feel free to disseminate this information as you deem appropriate and contact my team or I with any questions.

    Below this message is an image of a fake court document sent to victims associated with a scam as described above. Our office recently obtained it from a citizen who was targeted.

    Respectfully,

    Jeff Fine

    Clerk of the Superior Court, Maricopa County





  • 02 Jul 2019 9:23 AM | Anonymous member (Administrator)

     

    Arizona Judicial Council | June 2019 Update

    Announcements

     

    The Arizona Judicial Council met on Monday, June 17.  The next meeting is scheduled on Thursday, October 24, 2019 at Little America Hotel, Flagstaff, AZ.

    This was the last Arizona Judicial Council (AJC) meeting as members for Presiding Judge Janet Barton, Chief Judge Peter Eckerstrom, Chief Judge Sam Thumma, public member Ken Bennett, and State Bar president Jeff Willis.


    This was also the last meeting for the Chair, Chief Justice Scott Bales, who will retire from the Court at the end of July.

     

    Next Meetings:
    Thursday, October 24, 2019 | Little America, Flagstaff

    Thursday, December 12, 2019 | State Courts Building, Phoenix

    Commission on Technology

    Karl Heckert briefed members on the activities from the recent annual Commission on Technology (COT) meeting including the list of fiscal year priorities (below) and sought Council support on the following:

     

    Approve the addition of a second factor to the login process for court staff having elevated credentials, policy setting or decision-making responsibility, or access to sensitive information. Any device accessing the court network must be queried for the second factor and must be reverified every 30 days. – AJC Supports


    Approve an ongoing 2.5 percent annual increase in JCEF subscription charges for Fiscal Years 2021 through 2026 as a component of the long-term, gap-closing strategy recommended by the Commission on Technology. COT recommends that the subscription charge structure be revisited for FY27 and beyond. – AJC Supports


    Approve the FY20 JCEF automation budget, as recommended by the Commission on Technology.  Approve the JCEF non-automation court programs budget and the JCEF probation budget, as recommended by the AOC Administrative Director and as appropriated by the Legislature. – AJC Supports

    Commission on Technology’s strategic information technology priorities for FY2020-2023 are:

    1.            Production Support (incl. bug fixes, req. chgs)

    2.            Manage & Improve Security (incl. COOP rvw)

    3.            Finish Core System Deployments (GJ/ LJ)

    4.            Mitigate Aging Technology Risk

    5.            Increase Revenue Flow (FARE, eAccess, eFile)

    6.            Increase Data Utilization (ex. access & BI)

    7.            Public Facing Services (ex. eFile, eAccess, eNotification, ODR)

    8.            Integrate Systems to Improve Productivity and Capability

    9.            Enhance Core Systems w/New Functionality

    Judicial Branch Legislative Update
    Jerry Landau and Amy Love reviewed the 2019 legislative session.   A summary of the bills is available below.
    https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/84/MeetingMaterials/2019/June/TAB_3_AJC_Leg.pdf

    Arizona Code of Judicial Administration (ACJA)
    Marcus Reinskensmeyer discussed the FARE program and proposed amendments to ACJA §5-205: Collections that would better reflect the FARE program.  Marcus sought Council support on the creation of a new $9 DSO/TIP fee for each state tax interception from agencies that do not take part in FARE, to offset the use of running the DSO program. – AJC Supports

     

    Small Claims Pilot Report

    Retired Judge Steve McMurray and Marretta Mathes updated members on the Small Claims Pilot Committee and sought Council support on the Committee’s recommendations about which model to implement statewide and approval of the draft rules in the pending rule petition.

     

    Since the pilot, small claims processing has improved everywhere.  The current rule change petition will make the improvements available statewide.  Recommend rules for process that include using technology to monitor and track cases. – AJC Supports

     

    Small Claims Pilot Program: Report and Recommendations to the Arizona Judicial Council Report

    Ex Parte Protection Orders – Time Standards

    Marretta Mathes presented on behalf of the Steering Committee on Arizona Case Processing Standards.
    The Committee reviewed the data for ex parte protection orders and recommended a final case processing standard of 99 percent within 24 hours. – AJC Supports

    Report on “Enhancing Court and Probation Practices for Cases Involving Juveniles Who Commit Sexually Abusive Behaviors”
    Joe Kelroy and Dr. Kurt Bumby (via phone), Center for Effective Public Policy, presented the final report and asked for Council support to approve the final report and its recommendations.  They provided an overview of the advisory committee from Arizona’s five largest counties and its study and results.  – AJC Supports

    Court Security Officer Academy
    Jeff Schrade presented an update on the first Court Security Officer Certification Academy. Arizona has approximately 500 court security officers in 160 court locations, between court employees and law enforcement individuals, approximately 175 of whom carry weapons. Seventeen individuals from 11 counties and cities attended the first academy. The Academy will be part of the certification process of standardized training to become a certified Court Security Officer and will eventually incorporate the Firearms Academy and its standards.

    Justice for the Future: Planning for Excellence

    Justice Brutinel provided an overview of his five-year strategic agenda: Justice for the Future: Planning for Excellence. Many of the judiciary’s imperatives continue from prior agendas into this one. This agenda includes new plans for using technology to improve and track the courts’ effectiveness, to resolve more cases and payments online, and to respond to escalating cyber threats. The agenda calls for responding better to mental health issues in the courts, improving access to justice for self-represented litigants, establishing a trial judge training academy, and many other initiatives.

Webmaster Email: sherwood.johnston@jbazmc.maricopa.gov

Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software