Town Ordinances Enforced as a
Civil Violation
In 1999, the Legislature expanded the authority of municipalities "to classify ordinance violations as criminal or civil offenses" (ARS 9-240.B.28(c)). The provision did not, however, spell out the procedures to be used in a civil hearing procedure, the type of sanction that may apply, any appeal rights, or whether the case could be heard by the magistrate or a hearing officer. Many jurisdictions went ahead and created ordinances based on civil traffic citation procedures. Now, the Legislature has passed a new provision in SB 1331 that would add ARS 9-240.01 as a separate statute to clarify this authority:
The magistrate or a separately-appointed hearing officer can hear the matter
Service of notice of the violation, any order, continuances, or other motions can be made by the methods described in Rule 4.1, Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, or by certified or registered mail
The hearing procedures, rules of evidence, record on appeal, and default follow those of the rules for civil traffic offenses
Civil penalties up to maximum amount specified in ARS 9-240 for ordinance violations (now up to $2500 under ARS 9-240.B.28(b)) "for each day a violation exists beyond the initial notice" as a separate offense
The hearing officer can also order abatement pursuant to the removal procedures for health hazards and dilapidated buildings set forth in ARS 9-499, which can include a lien for compliance costs
If there is no compliance with the civil proceedings, the municipality can also file criminal charges
Any appeal is to the Superior Court under ARS 12-124
The new statutes benefit both the Town and the public. First, by having our ordinances (zoning, curfew, parking, animal control, firearms, etc) enforced in a civil proceeding similar to civil traffic offenses allows the defendant and the State to appear without attorneys, use more relaxed rules of procedure, and not be a criminal charge on the record if found guilty. The Town does not have to use court resources, such as the magistrate and staff, and the marshal's office does not have to call in deputies to do the citations. Jail time for a violation is not an option, but then the standard of proof is not "beyond a reasonable doubt" as it is in a criminal case. We think that the use of civil enforcement will obtain compliance without the stigma and formalities of a criminal case proceeding against citizens for simple animal control, zoning, and building code violations.
The current version of our civil enforcement ordinance is 99-A152, and it will have to be modified to comply with the new provisions of ARS 9-240.01, as well as possibly expand to include all Town ordinances rather than zoning and building code violations.