Skip to content
The COVID Project
  1. Library
  2. Standing duties: Arizona
  3. DUT-AZ-019

Ex. DUT-AZ-019 Standing duty Primary source read

Published opinion

Miller v. City of Scottsdale, No. 22-16004 (9th Cir. Dec. 8, 2023)

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (published opinion; Hurwitz, J., concurring) · United States (9th Cir.) (Court)

Open exhibit (PDF, 208 KB)Source (opens in a new tab)
The COVID Project

The record

Jurisdiction
United States (9th Cir.) · Arizona
Level
Court
Authority
28 U.S.C. § 1291; 42 U.S.C. § 1983; First and Fourth Amendments
Issued
2023-12-08 Dec. 8, 2023
Effective
2023-12-08 (adjudicating an arrest of April 11, 2020) (read as 2023-12-08)
End
n/a (ruling)
In force
Dec. 8, 2023 (no end date recorded; counted as in force for 120 days)
Quarters
2020 Q2
Limitation types
Business closureStanding duty
Addressees
  • restaurant owners and operators subject to EO 2020-09; law enforcement enforcing the executive orders
Character
adjudication
Collection
Standing duties: Arizona DUT-AZ

Operative words

Issued on March 30, 2020, EO 2020-18 set forth a physical distancing policy and enacted a notice requirement: "Prior to any enforcement action being taken to enforce this order in accordance with A.R.S. § 26-317, a person shall be notified and given an opportunity to comply."... Issued on June 29, 2020, EO 2020-43 specified that enforcement actions could be taken against business entities

Penalty

A.R.S. § 26-317 (class 1 misdemeanor) applied by arrest and citation; charges later dismissed

What it required

Recited the Arizona order chain (Declaration of Emergency; EO 2020-09's command that restaurants 'shall close access to on-site dining'; EO 2020-12; EO 2020-18's notice requirement; EO 2020-43's enforcement clause) and held that a Scottsdale officer had probable cause to arrest a restaurant owner under A.R.S. § 26-317 for on-site dining on April 11, 2020 after warnings on March 27 and 28, 2020, affirming summary judgment against the owner's First and Fourth Amendment claims. Character as recorded: adjudication (order_penalty layer).

Retrieval note

The opinion's introduction describes the case as 'the enforcement of a governor's emergency executive order enacted under the guidance of health officials' (slip op. at 5). Decided after the six quarters; relied on for its authoritative recital of the 2020 enforcement regime and for the fact of the April 11, 2020 arrest. The court's own staff summary (slip op.

A record of The COVID Project. The instrument's text is the source's; the summary fields are The COVID Project's reading of it. Not legal advice.