Being arrested on a domestic violence allegation in Maricopa County moves faster than almost any other kind of case. Officers often have no choice about the arrest. You may be held rather than cited and released. There may be a no-contact order in place before you have spoken to anyone. And as of June 2026, a conviction carries a family court consequence that did not exist a year ago.
This page explains what Arizona law actually says, including several things that are commonly stated incorrectly on other websites, so you can understand what you are facing before you make decisions that are hard to undo.
This is the single most misunderstood thing about these cases, and getting it right changes how you think about the whole file.
Arizona has no crime called “domestic violence.” A.R.S. § 13-3601 is a designation that attaches to an underlying offense. You are charged with assault, or disorderly conduct, or criminal damage, or threatening and intimidating — and that charge is marked with the letters DV because of who the alleged victim is.
The statute says so directly. Under § 13-3601(M), an offense included in domestic violence “carries the classification prescribed in the section of this title in which the offense is classified.” The DV designation does not change the class of the crime. A class 1 misdemeanor assault is still a class 1 misdemeanor when it is designated DV.
What the designation changes is everything around the charge: how the arrest happens, what conditions of release look like, what the court must order on conviction, how the conviction counts if there is ever another one, and — as of 2026 — what happens in family court.
So the accurate way to describe your case is not “I was charged with domestic violence.” It is “I was charged with [the offense], with a domestic violence designation.” That precision matters, because the underlying offense is what drives the sentencing range, the defenses available, and whether federal consequences attach.
First, the offense has to be on the statutory list. Section 13-3601(A) enumerates the offenses that can carry the designation by statute number. The ones that come up most often in Maricopa County are assault (§ 13-1203), aggravated assault (§ 13-1204), disorderly conduct (§ 13-2904), criminal damage (§ 13-1602), threatening or intimidating (§ 13-1202), harassment (§ 13-2921), stalking (§ 13-2923), unlawful imprisonment (§ 13-1303), criminal trespass (§§ 13-1502 through 13-1504), interfering with judicial proceedings (§ 13-2810), preventing the use of a telephone in an emergency (§ 13-2915), and child or vulnerable adult abuse (§ 13-3623).
An important detail that gets flattened almost everywhere: for three of those offenses, only specific paragraphs qualify. Disorderly conduct only counts under § 13-2904, subsection A, paragraphs 1, 2, 3 or 6. Cruelty to animals only counts under § 13-2910(A)(8) or (9). Preventing use of a telephone in an emergency only counts under § 13-2915(A)(3). A disorderly conduct charge filed under a paragraph outside that list cannot carry the DV designation at all. If the charging document does not specify the paragraph, that is worth looking at.
Second, the relationship has to qualify. Section 13-3601(A) lists six categories: current or former spouses, or people who reside or have resided in the same household; people who have a child in common; where one party is pregnant by the other; certain blood and in-law relationships including parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, brother, sister, parent-in-law, stepparent, stepchild and others; certain children who reside or have resided in the household; and people who are currently or were previously in a romantic or sexual relationship.
That last category is the one that gets litigated. The statute gives the court four factors to consider: the type of relationship, the length of the relationship, the frequency of interaction between the parties, and, if the relationship has ended, how long ago it ended. Those factors are permissive, not a checklist, and a brief or long-ago relationship is a real place to challenge the designation.
Notice how wide the Arizona list is. It reaches siblings, grandparents, in-laws and stepchildren. That breadth matters enormously when we get to firearms below, because federal law is much narrower.
Ordinarily, an officer cannot arrest someone for a misdemeanor that was not committed in the officer’s presence. Section 13-3601(B) removes that limit for domestic violence. An officer may arrest, with or without a warrant, on probable cause to believe a domestic violence offense was committed and that the person committed it — felony or misdemeanor, in the officer’s presence or not.
And in a defined set of cases the arrest is mandatory. Where the allegation involves the infliction of physical injury, or the discharge, use or threatening exhibition of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument, the officer shall arrest a person who is at least fifteen years of age on probable cause. There is one statutory exception: if the officer has reasonable grounds to believe the circumstances are such that the victim will be protected from further injury.
Two consequences follow that surprise almost everyone:
You cannot be cited and released in the field. Section 13-3601(B) shuts off the release procedures in § 13-3883(A)(4) and § 13-3903 for arrests made under that subsection. That is why a misdemeanor that would otherwise get you a citation instead gets you booked and brought before a judicial officer.
Both people can be arrested, but not automatically. To arrest both parties, the officer must have probable cause that each independently committed an act of domestic violence. And the statute is explicit that an act of self-defense justified under chapter 4 of Title 13 is not an act of domestic violence.
When you are released, the order will include conditions. Section 13-3601(I) requires any release order to include pretrial conditions necessary to protect the alleged victim and other designated persons. Those conditions are mandatory; the court has discretion about what else to add. Violating them is its own problem, separate from the underlying charge.
People call about this constantly. Once a case is filed, it belongs to the State — the City Prosecutor or the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office — not to the person who called the police. A recanting or unwilling witness is a fact the prosecutor has to weigh, and it can matter a great deal to how a case resolves, but it is not a dismissal, and prosecutors in Maricopa County frequently proceed without a cooperative complaining witness.
It also means the safest thing an accused person can do is nothing: no calls, no texts, no messages passed through friends or family. Contact in violation of a court order is charged as interfering with judicial proceedings under § 13-2810, a class 1 misdemeanor, and it hands the prosecutor evidence they did not have before.
Because the designation does not change the classification, the sentencing exposure comes from the underlying offense. A DV-designated class 1 misdemeanor carries the class 1 misdemeanor range; a DV-designated aggravated assault carries the felony range for that offense.
What the designation adds is a mandatory treatment requirement, and it lives in a different statute than most people expect. It is A.R.S. § 13-3601.01, not § 13-3601. On conviction of a misdemeanor domestic violence offense, the judge shall order completion of a domestic violence offender treatment program through an approved provider. If a person has previously been ordered to complete one, the judge shall order it again unless the judge finds alternative sanctions more appropriate. The defendant pays for the program, and the program reports attendance and completion to the court.
Section 13-3601.01 also carries a 60-month recidivism provision: on a misdemeanor DV conviction where the person has a prior DV conviction within the preceding sixty months, the judge may place the person on supervised probation with incarceration as a condition of probation, with work or school release available in defined amounts.
Do not confuse that 60-month window with the 84-month window in the aggravated statute. They are different rules doing different work.
A.R.S. § 13-3601.02 is a standalone felony — the one place where domestic violence really is its own offense. A person is guilty of aggravated domestic violence on a third or subsequent domestic violence violation within eighty-four months. Out-of-state, federal and tribal convictions count if the conduct would be a domestic violence offense in Arizona.
Aggravated domestic violence is a class 5 felony. With two qualifying priors in the window, the statute makes a person ineligible for probation, pardon, commutation, suspension of sentence or release on any other basis until they have served not less than four months in jail. With three or more, that floor is not less than eight months.
Here is the part that is stated incorrectly on a lot of websites. The eighty-four month window is measured by the dates the offenses were committed, not the dates of conviction, and § 13-3601.02(D) says the sequence in which the offenses were committed does not matter. That cuts both ways. It means a person can qualify as a third-time offender even where a later-committed offense happened to be convicted first. It also means the window is sometimes narrower than the prosecutor’s initial calculation, and the commission dates are worth checking carefully in every case with priors.
Two more limits worth knowing: convictions arising out of the same series of acts do not supply separate qualifying violations, and prior misdemeanor DV convictions count only for offenses committed on or after January 1, 1999.
The common claim is that any Arizona domestic violence conviction means a lifetime federal firearms ban. That is not what the law says, and the difference is not academic.
The federal prohibition in 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) applies to a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,” which is defined at 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33). That definition requires two things Arizona’s designation does not:
A force element. The offense must have as an element the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon. Many offenses that carry the Arizona DV designation have no such element — criminal damage, criminal trespass, harassment, stalking, surreptitious photographing, interfering with judicial proceedings, unlawful electronic communication. Federal law looks at the elements of the offense, not at the state’s DV label.
A narrower relationship. The federal definition reaches a current or former spouse, a parent or guardian, someone with a child in common, someone who cohabited as a spouse, parent or guardian, someone similarly situated, and (since 2022) someone in a current or recent former dating relationship. Arizona’s list is wider. Siblings, grandparents, grandchildren and in-laws all bring a case within § 13-3601(A)(4), and none of those categories appears in the federal definition.
So the label is not the trigger. The elements and the relationship are. Which offense you plead to, and how it is charged, can be the difference between keeping and losing the right to possess a firearm for the rest of your life. That is a plea-negotiation issue that has to be identified at the beginning, not discovered afterward.
A separate federal provision, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), attaches to people subject to a qualifying protective order. It has its own statutory requirements, including that the order issued after a hearing of which the person had actual notice and an opportunity to participate, that it restrain conduct toward an intimate partner or that partner’s child, and that it either include a finding of a credible threat to physical safety or by its terms prohibit the use of force. In United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024), the Supreme Court held 8–1 that a person a court has found to pose a credible threat to another’s physical safety may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment. The Court expressly did not decide whether the alternative prong — an order with no credible-threat finding — is also permissible, and its opinion did not address § 922(g)(9) at all.
On the Arizona side, § 13-3602(G)(4) provides that if the court finds a defendant is a credible threat to the physical safety of the protected person, it may prohibit the defendant from possessing or purchasing a firearm for the duration of an order of protection — and if it does, the defendant must transfer any firearm to law enforcement immediately on service, or within twenty-four hours.
One warning we will repeat in person. Arizona law provides that when a conviction is set aside under A.R.S. § 13-905, the person’s right to possess a firearm is restored, with an exception for serious offenses. That is a statement about Arizona law. Whether an Arizona set-aside also lifts a federal prohibition under § 922(g)(9) is a genuinely unsettled question, and there is federal appellate authority holding that similar state relief in other states was not enough, because it did not nullify the conviction. Arizona’s set-aside does not vacate the conviction and expressly preserves certain disabilities. No one should rely on a set-aside as federal firearms clearance without individualized advice. The consequence of getting that wrong is a federal felony.
This is new, and most content on the internet has not caught up to it.
HB2995, Laws 2026, Chapter 263 — the “Alec and Lydia Act” — was signed on June 22, 2026 with an emergency clause, which means it took effect immediately rather than in the fall. It amends A.R.S. §§ 25-403.03, 25-404 and 25-411. It does not change the criminal statutes at all. What it changes is what a criminal domestic violence conviction does to you in family court.
Four changes matter most to someone facing a criminal charge:
The presumption now reaches parenting time, not just legal decision-making. Under prior law, a finding of domestic violence blocked joint legal decision-making. The rewritten statute creates a mandatory rebuttable presumption that an award of legal decision-making or parenting time to that parent is contrary to the child’s best interests.
The severity threshold is gone. The old “significant history of domestic violence” gateway was deleted, and the court is now barred from requiring a victim to prove the violence was severe or frequent enough. Any act or offense prescribed in § 13-3601(A) is a trigger.
The burden to rebut is now clear and convincing evidence. Prior law specified no standard of proof. The court may not grant sole or joint legal decision-making, or unsupervised parenting time, unless the parent overcomes the presumption by clear and convincing evidence, and may not grant even supervised parenting time unless the parent overcomes it by a preponderance.
A completion certificate is no longer enough. The statute now says the court may not consider a certificate of completion alone as proof of rehabilitation, and rebuttal requires, among other things, a waiver of privilege releasing treatment records to the court and to the other party.
The statute also directs the court to consider factual determinations related to domestic violence from a court of competent jurisdiction. In plain terms: the criminal judgment travels into family court. If you have children and there is any prospect of a custody or parenting-time proceeding, the criminal case and the family case can no longer be thought about separately. What the charge is called at the end of the criminal case now has a defined, statutory effect on the family case.
An order of protection under A.R.S. § 13-3602 is a civil proceeding. It can issue ex parte — without you present — on a finding of reasonable cause to believe the defendant may commit an act of domestic violence, or has committed one within the past year or longer for good cause. It is effective on you when it is served, and it expires two years after service, not two years after it was issued.
You are entitled to one hearing on written request. The court must hold it within ten days of the request, or within five days if the order gave the other party exclusive use of the home. At that hearing the burden is on the person who requested the order, and the standard is a preponderance of the evidence. That is worth sitting with: you request the hearing, but you do not carry the burden at it.
Violating the order is charged as interfering with judicial proceedings under § 13-2810, a class 1 misdemeanor, and § 13-3602 authorizes a warrantless arrest on probable cause of a violation.
Where there is no qualifying domestic relationship, the corresponding remedy is an injunction against harassment under A.R.S. § 12-1809, which lasts one year after service rather than two.
We handle both sides of these proceedings. See Orders of Protection and Injunctions Against Harassment.
Neither Arizona statute contains a domestic violence carve-out. The list of offenses ineligible for a set-aside under A.R.S. § 13-905 and the list ineligible for sealing under A.R.S. § 13-911 do not mention domestic violence or § 13-3601 anywhere.
Eligibility turns on the underlying offense. A DV-designated misdemeanor assault, disorderly conduct or criminal damage is generally eligible for both. But a DV-designated offense is still excluded if it independently falls into a listed category — a dangerous offense, a serious or violent or aggravated felony, or an offense with the discharge, use or threatening exhibition of a deadly weapon, or the knowing infliction of serious physical injury, as an element. Aggravated assault cases often fall out on that basis.
Two practical notes. Sealing under § 13-911 has waiting periods measured from completion of the nonmonetary conditions of the sentence — ten years for a class 2 or 3 felony, five for a class 4, 5 or 6 felony, three for a class 1 misdemeanor, two for a class 2 or 3 misdemeanor — and requires that fines, fees and restitution be paid at the time of filing. And the sealing statute requires notice to the victim, with a waiting period before the court can rule unless the prosecutor and all victims affirmatively do not object. In domestic violence cases, victims often do appear and object.
The 2024 legislation known as the Bill of Hope (SB1639, Laws 2024, Chapter 244) meaningfully widened access to sealing. It removed the rule that anyone with a historical prior felony had to wait an extra five years, and replaced it with a narrower rule: the extra five years now applies only to a person who already had records sealed and then committed a new felony. A lot of people who were locked out under the old rule are eligible now and do not know it.
See Post-Conviction Relief and Appeals.
There is no single template. What the case turns on depends on the offense charged, the evidence the State actually has, and what the client needs to protect.
The designation itself. If the relationship does not fit one of the six statutory categories — particularly the romantic or sexual relationship category, with its four factors — the DV designation should not attach, even if the underlying offense stands. Removing the designation removes the mandatory treatment order, the aggravated-DV exposure on any future case, and the § 25-403.03 family court trigger.
The charging paragraph. For disorderly conduct, cruelty to animals and preventing use of a telephone in an emergency, only specific paragraphs qualify. This is checked in every case.
Self-defense and defense of another. Section 13-3601(B) states outright that a justified act of self-defense is not an act of domestic violence. In mutual-conflict cases where the officer had to pick someone, who called first is not the same as who was the aggressor.
The evidence behind the arrest. Body-worn camera footage, 911 audio, dispatch logs, photographs, medical records and the officer’s report frequently do not line up with the narrative in the charging document. The gap between them is often the case.
Prior-conviction math. Where the State alleges aggravated domestic violence, the commission dates, the 84-month window, the same-series-of-acts limit and the January 1, 1999 cutoff all have to be verified independently.
Collateral consequences as a negotiating priority. For a client with a professional license, an immigration issue, a firearm, or children, the right resolution is often not the one with the shortest jail exposure. It is the one that avoids the federal force element, or keeps the § 13-3601 designation off the judgment, or preserves eligibility for later relief. That has to be the goal from the first conversation, because it usually cannot be fixed later.
We are a Maricopa County criminal defense firm. We appear in the Phoenix, Mesa, Scottsdale, Tempe, Chandler, Gilbert and Glendale municipal courts, in the Maricopa County Justice Courts, and in Maricopa County Superior Court on felony matters.
We take these cases to trial when trial is the right answer, and we say so early when it is not. Consultations are free and confidential. If you have a hearing date, a no-contact order, or an arraignment coming up, the sooner we see the paperwork the more options there are.
Neither, by itself. The domestic violence designation does not have its own classification. Under A.R.S. § 13-3601(M), the offense keeps whatever class the underlying statute assigns it. A DV-designated assault can be a misdemeanor; a DV-designated aggravated assault is a felony. The one exception is aggravated domestic violence under § 13-3601.02, which is a standalone class 5 felony for a third or subsequent violation within eighty-four months.
No. Once a case is filed, the decision to proceed belongs to the prosecuting agency, not to the person who reported the incident. An uncooperative or recanting witness is a factor a prosecutor weighs, and it can affect how a case resolves, but it does not end the case on its own.
A.R.S. § 13-3601(B) allows a warrantless arrest for a domestic violence offense on probable cause whether or not the offense occurred in the officer’s presence, and requires arrest where the allegation involves physical injury or the discharge, use or threatening exhibition of a deadly weapon, unless the officer has reasonable grounds to believe the victim will be protected from further injury.
Not automatically, and not because of the DV label. The federal prohibition in 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) applies only where the offense has a force element and the relationship fits the narrower federal definition in § 921(a)(33). Many Arizona DV-designated offenses meet neither test. Which offense you resolve the case with is often what determines the answer, which is why it needs to be addressed before a plea, not after.
On a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction, yes. A.R.S. § 13-3601.01 requires the judge to order completion of an approved domestic violence offender treatment program. The defendant pays for it and the program reports attendance and completion to the court.
Under A.R.S. § 13-3601.02, it is a third or subsequent domestic violence violation within eighty-four months, and it is a class 5 felony. With two qualifying priors the statute requires at least four months in jail before any release; with three or more, at least eight months. The window is measured by the dates the offenses were committed, and the order in which they were committed does not matter.
Two years from the date it is served on you, not from the date it was issued. An order that is not served within one year of issuance expires. You are entitled to one hearing on written request, held within ten days, or within five days if the other party was given exclusive use of the home.
Possibly. Neither the set-aside statute (A.R.S. § 13-905) nor the sealing statute (A.R.S. § 13-911) excludes domestic violence as a category. Eligibility depends on the underlying offense and whether it independently falls into an excluded class, such as a dangerous offense or one with serious physical injury or a deadly weapon as an element. A 2024 change to the sealing law widened eligibility for many people with older felony records.
Significantly, and more than it did a year ago. HB2995, Laws 2026, Chapter 263, took effect June 22, 2026. It creates a mandatory rebuttable presumption that awarding legal decision-making or parenting time to a parent who has committed an act or offense described in A.R.S. § 13-3601(A) is contrary to the child’s best interests, rebuttable only by clear and convincing evidence, and it provides that a treatment completion certificate alone is not proof of rehabilitation.
That decision should be made only after someone has looked at the federal firearms elements, the family court consequences under the 2026 amendments, whether the designation itself is defensible, and whether the offense will be eligible for sealing or set-aside later. A quick resolution that carries a lifetime firearms prohibition or a custody presumption is not a quick resolution.
Arizona cases rarely arrive alone. If any of these apply to your situation, or you are not sure which charge you are actually facing, these pages explain what to expect:
Misdemeanor domestic violence cases in Maricopa County are prosecuted in the municipal court for the city where the incident occurred or in the applicable justice court — Phoenix Municipal Court, Mesa Municipal Court, Scottsdale City Court, Tempe Municipal Court, Chandler Municipal Court, Gilbert Municipal Court, Glendale City Court, and the Maricopa County Justice Courts. Felony matters, including aggravated domestic violence and aggravated assault, are filed in Maricopa County Superior Court and prosecuted by the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office. Where your case is filed affects who prosecutes it, what diversion or treatment options exist, and what resolutions are realistically available.
This page is general legal information about Arizona law, not legal advice about your case, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case turns on its own facts. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Rating
We had an outstanding experience working with Ryan Tait at The Nova Law Group. We were facing a frustrating situation involving a delayed leasing fee from a leasing company, and Ryan stepped in with confidence, clarity, and professionalism. From the very beginning, he provided sound legal advice and thoughtful guidance that helped us understand our options and move forward strategically. He was responsive, knowledgeable, and truly advocated on our behalf. Thanks to his diligence and expertise, we were able to successfully obtain the leasing fee that had been delayed. We are incredibly grateful for his support throughout the process. If you are looking for an attorney who is professional, effective, and genuinely committed to helping his clients, we highly recommend Ryan and his team.
If you’re looking for a law group that truly cares about you and makes a difficult situation less stressful, these are your people. Ryan took on my case and was so caring and compassionate — I was really down after my DUI accident and felt like my world was ending. They made everything feel less scary and showed me there really was light at the end of the tunnel. Alexis was my lawyer, and she was truly heaven-sent. She’s now representing a family member of mine, and I know they’ll be in the best hands. 1000/10 recommend this team for any of your legal troubles! They treat you like family and make the whole process as smooth and stress-free as possible. Thank you, Ryan and Alexis!
Tait and hall did so well with my case. To be specific Brooke and Alexis took my case and ended with no jail time nor anything on my background for a misdemeanor and even dropped my felony charge. Amazing work! Thank you tait and hall law firm staff.
Tait & Hall is without a doubt the best law firm in valley. Ryan and his team are kind, understanding, and very good listeners. Each member of his team was well educated, knowledgable and very professional. The team at Tait & Hall models the character of their Leader. They are proud about their representation of you, Kind, and supportive and most of all they won't give up on you. Grateful to have found this team!
I just want to express how grateful I am to have contacted them for my case. They are the most efficient, most professional, and most communicative firm i’ve ever had the pleasure to deal with. Mr. Tait and his assistant got all the required documents for me within a week of contacting them, something my previous attorney failed to do for an entire year. If you’re looking for help for something that’s within their area of expertise, please reach out and I promise you that you will not regret it. I would’ve saved myself so much time, money, and effort bouncing between law firms if I had contacted Tait & Hall first. I’d give them a thousand stars if I could. Thank you guys!!!!
