Court Ruling Exonerates Wonder Constable in Tucson Eviction Death

On March 13, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that a survivor of a tragic eviction incident, which resulted in the death of his wife, cannot sue the estate of the constable involved. In a unanimous decision, the justices addressed allegations against Deborah Martinez-Garibay, stating she acted with gross negligence during a 2022 eviction at a Tucson apartment complex.

The situation escalated when the occupant, Gavin Lee Stansell, opened fire, leading to the deaths of the constable, apartment manager Angela Fox, and bystander Elijah Miranda, before Stansell took his own life. Justice John Lopez, who authored the court’s opinion, emphasized that Arizona law grants judicial immunity to those performing judicial functions, even in cases of gross negligence.

Lopez clarified that immunity could be lifted in instances of “misconduct,” defined as an intentional failure to execute a court eviction warrant. However, the court noted that William Fox, the apartment manager’s husband, did not allege misconduct as the court defines it, despite an autopsy revealing drugs in Martinez-Garibay’s system. Thus, the court determined Fox lacks a legal cause of action against her estate.

Unclear, however, is whether this ruling prohibits a lawsuit against Pima County for negligent supervision of the constable. The court’s decision appears to uphold a lower court’s determination that if Martinez-Garibay is immune, then the county is not liable for her actions. David Abney, representing William Fox, argues there is precedent for suing an employer, like Pima County, even if no legal claim exists against the employee. He suggested grounds may exist for alleging county negligence in hiring and supervising the constable.

The ruling raises significant implications about the level of accountability for constables in Arizona. It potentially allows constables to act with gross negligence while shielding counties from related lawsuits without fear of repercussions. Under state law, constables are elected officials with authority comparable to that of county sheriffs.

The Arizona Constable Ethics, Standards and Training Board, also named in the lawsuit but found to be shielded from liability, noted that constables primarily operate within their precincts, with core responsibilities including executing eviction writs and serving legal orders.

Arizona law allows for constables and sheriff’s deputies to be sued, but only in cases of established misconduct during the service of legal documents. Lopez pointed out that the law does not clearly define “misconduct,” prompting the justices to consult various sources to clarify the term.

Lopez concluded that “misconduct” entails willful violations of applicable rules or standards rather than merely negligent actions. He highlighted concerns raised by Fox regarding the safety of eviction practices. However, he categorized those concerns under gross negligence rather than misconduct, reaffirming the constable’s immunity in this context.