A national watchdog organization, Judicial Watch, citing potential conflicts with Arizona state law, has requested the City of Sedona to review and revise the Sedona Police Department’s warning shot policy.
Judicial is also concerned about the accuracy of the policy.
According to Judicial Watch, on July 28, 2025, the organization submitted a public records request (PRR) to City Manager Annette Spickard regarding the Sedona Police Department (SPD) warning shot policy. The request was promptly addressed, and the PRR was closed on September 4, 2025.
Judicial Watch sought various SPD documents, including training records, policy manuals, and communications related to the use of warning shots. However, many of the requested documents were not provided or available. The responsive documents included 26 emails, which revealed a timeline of events and issues related to the warning shot policy.
Notably, on April 18, 2023, an email indicated that a revised policy manual for SPD was under consideration, which included and allowed warning shots. Subsequent emails showed ongoing evaluations and suggestions for policy revisions, with some recommendations to exclude warning shots.
Judicial Watch expressed concerns that the current policy may conflict with A.R.S. §13-3107, also known as Shannon’s Law, which could classify the use of warning shots as a class 6 felony. Additionally, they questioned the accuracy and consistency of the policy with AZPOST (State law enforcement certification agency) and other law enforcement standards.
Judicial Watch has requested the City Council and City Manager to consider revising the SPD policy to eliminate the use of warning shots. They have indicated their intention to make a formal complaint to the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board (AZPOST) and the Arizona Attorney General’s office if the policy is not revised.
it should be the officers decision to fire a warning shot or not. should not be a requirement. the guys have enough to do without more rules,regulations
It is unfair to both the officers and the legally armed public to constrict the range of allowed responses when faced with unforeseeable situations. A good rule of thumb in police work is to trust the decision-making of the first officer on the scene, until the situation can be stabilized. Train your cops, then trust them — few will disappoint.
What are they thinking?? If the officer deems a life threatening situation requiring lethal use of force, you shoot and continue shooting until the threat is neutralized… They have a tasar or other non-lethal methods for incapaciting without endangering the public.
A stray round has all the potential to injure someoone other than the intended party and wreak untold liability on the department without resolving the conflict.
What genius thought this up??
“… consider revising the SPD policy to eliminate the use of warning shots.”
Seriously? If it can be done _safely_ (into a berm or soft ground), and it gets the perp’s attention, why not? Why does everything have to be lethal force as a first option? Why would Judicial Watch want to promote this? And extend it, not just to the PD but to self-defense scenarios, too. If a warning shot – instead of a chest shot – ends the situation, so much the better!
I doubt JW, a conservative org and friend of the Bill of Rights, was intending to restrict the department’s firearms policies. They exposed city emails arguing both ways, and they have brought them to the public’s attention, a good thing.
Police officers need to be held to the same or higher standard as the rest of us.
Warning shots violate the basic firearm safety rules. Enough said
You don’t have to comply with Public Records Requests if the records are embarrassing or politically damaging to Democrats or McCain-scum RINOs
why not issue squirt guns?
Then you’d have to have a warning squirt…