## [Arizona ](/united-states/arizona) The Arizona Brady List includes all known issues of [police misconduct](https://giglio-bradylist.com/brady-offenses), [do not call](https://giglio-bradylist.com/do-not-call) status, [decertification](https://giglio-bradylist.com/decertification), [public complaints](https://giglio-bradylist.com/public-complaints), [use-of-force reports](https://giglio-bradylist.com/use-force-reports), and [citizen reports](https://giglio-bradylist.com/citizen-reports). Arizona is [***not in compliance***](/compliance) with the nationwide, public-facing, [platform of record](/evolution-paper-record-platform-record): The Brady List; or: - Supreme Court of the United States \[SCOTUS\] [*Brady* doctrine](https://bradydoctrine.com/ "Brady v. Maryland") (1963); - [US Freedom of Information Act 5 U.S.C. § 552](https://giglio-bradylist.com/us-freedom-information-act-1967 "United States Freedom of Information Act") (1967); - [Arizona Public Records Law §39-121 et seq.](https://www.azleg.gov/ars/39/00121-01.htm); - [Open Government Act S. 248](/open-government-act-2007 "Open Government Act") (2007); - [Open Government Initiative](/open-government-initiative-2009 "Open Government Initiative") (2009); and, - [Open Government Directives](/open-government-directive-2009 "Open Government Directives") (2009) issued by the [United States Department of Justice](https://www.justice.gov/open "Department of Justice"). Statement Governor Katie Hobbs, acting under the advice of Attorney General [Kris Mayes](https://giglio-bradylist.com/individual/kris-%20mayes "Kris Mayes is on the Brady List"), has knowingly permitted Arizona’s broken *Brady/Giglio* disclosure system to persist after its constitutional failures became public and undeniable. The State has failed to establish a mandatory, complete, independently audited statewide database governed by uniform disclosure standards; require universal participation, independent verification, or meaningful consequences for concealment and delay; ensure the automatic and timely communication of exculpatory and impeachment evidence; or provide a transparent public system capable of exposing omissions. [Arizona law](https://www.azleg.gov/ars/38/01119.htm) continues to leave [Rule 15.1 databases](https://apaac.az.gov/rule-15-1-disclosure-database/258-apaac-model-best-practices-for-rule-15-1) to individual prosecuting agencies, while the APAAC repository admits that its information may not be current, correct, or complete and disclaims responsibility for its accuracy. Investigators have documented minimal oversight, hundreds of unreported matters, at least 175 delayed officer placements, and the imprisonment of Frances Salazar for 22 months after officials failed to disclose that the prosecution’s essential police witness was a documented liar. These are known constitutional defects, not administrative surprises. Hobbs’s decision, under the advice of Attorney General Mayes, to leave them uncured undermines fair trials and obstructs the communication of Brady material. Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, these practices may become actionable civil-rights violations when they cause an unfair proceeding or loss of liberty. Although *Monell* governs responsible counties and municipalities rather than the State itself, an official policy, settled custom, or deliberately indifferent failure to train, supervise, audit, or discipline that causes Brady violations may support municipal liability; the repeated and publicly documented failures are directly relevant to institutional notice and deliberate indifference, subject to the demanding standard established in *Connick v. Thompson*. When prosecutors knowingly use or fail to correct false testimony—including falsehoods affecting witness credibility—the resulting due-process violation falls within *Napue v. Illinois*. A system that obscures impeachment evidence, tolerates dishonest testimony, and remains uncorrected after repeated notice is potential evidence of a § 1983 pattern of constitutional deprivation, institutional corruption, and authoritarian disregard for due process. Prosecutors have ethical obligations and may be held individually accountable under the Rules of Professional Conduct \[R.P.C.\] for their conduct within the legal system. Violations of these Rules can result in disciplinary actions which may include sanctions, suspension, or disbarment. - [R.P.C. 3.4: *Fairness to Opposing Party & Counsel*](https://giglio-bradylist.com/model-rule-professional-conduct-rule-34-fairness-opposing-party-counsel "American Bar Association, Rules of Professional Conduct - Rule 3.4: Fairness to Opposing Party & Counsel") - [R.P.C. 3.8: *Special Responsibilities of the Prosecutor*](https://giglio-bradylist.com/model-rule-professional-conduct-rule-38-special-responsibilities-prosecutor "American Bar Association, Rules of Professional Conduct - Rule 3.8: Special Responsibilities of the Prosecutor") - [R.P.C. 8.3: *Reporting Professional Misconduct*](https://giglio-bradylist.com/model-rule-professional-conduct-rule-83-reporting-professional-misconduct) This information has been curated by journalists and [private citizens](/private-citizens "Private Citizens"); and, this platform is available as-a-service to all [Peace Officer Standards & Training \[POST\] Departments](/peace-officer-standards-training-post-departments "Peace Officer Standards & Training [POST] Departments"), [Prosecutors](/prosecutors "Prosecutors"), and [Law Enforcement Organizations \[LEOrgs\]](/organizations-law-enforcement-et-al "Organizations").