Police use-of-force debate intensifies after the outcry, risks and legality of firing warning shots

In a recent investigative report, FOX 10 Investigator Justin Lum says Arizona law enforcement agencies still have the option to fire warning shots, but it is a rare tactic that is now drawing fresh criticism from policing experts, risk managers, and even former command staff inside departments. 

Lum’s “FOX 10 Investigates” report frames the issue as a mix of public safety risk, legal gray areas, and policy inconsistency, especially after one high-profile agency reversed course and banned the practice outright.

Lum reports that until recently, the Sedona Police Department allowed warning shots under limited circumstances, but that policy changed and now prohibits them “in all circumstances.” Lum says that reversal is being praised by ex-deputy chief Ryan Kwitkin, who argues warning shots are unsafe and belong in a past era of policing, not modern best practices.

The debate, Lum explains, isn’t happening in a vacuum. His reporting points to Shannon’s Law, an Arizona law created after a 14-year-old girl was killed by a stray bullet, making it a felony to negligently fire a gun into the air within city limits. 

Lum says experts argue policies allowing warning shots can conflict with the spirit, and sometimes the wording, of that statute, even if officers may sometimes be protected under governmental immunity when their actions are deemed reasonable.

Sedona Changes Course, And A Lawsuit Sits In The Background

Lum begins by warning viewers that warning shots are both rare and controversial, but he says agencies in Arizona have had the option to allow them. He reports that Sedona PD permitted warning shots under specific circumstances until a recent policy change removed that option.

Lum says FOX 10 confirmed Sedona Police Department’s policy no longer allows officers to use warning shots. The former policy, as Lum reads it, discouraged warning shots but still left a door open, stating they could not be discharged unless an officer reasonably believed they were necessary, effective, and reasonably safe.

Lum then contrasts that with the revised language FOX 10 obtained, which states that firing a firearm in a manner commonly referred to as a warning shot is expressly prohibited in all circumstances. 

The difference between “discouraged, but possible” and “prohibited, period” is the entire story in one sentence.

Lum reports that Ryan Kwitkin, Sedona’s former deputy chief, says the new ban is long overdue. Kwitkin tells Lum, “It’s unsafe to fire warning shots. This isn’t the Wild West,” signaling that in his view, the tactic is outdated and reckless.

Lum also makes it clear that Kwitkin’s voice comes with context. He notes that Kwitkin is the plaintiff in an ongoing lawsuit against the City of Sedona and top officials, including Police Chief Stephanie Foley, and that the city has denied the allegations and cannot comment while litigation is pending.

Lum reports Kwitkin was fired in August after being placed on paid administrative leave months earlier, and Kwitkin’s attorney claims his termination was unlawful and tied to retaliation for raising policy concerns, one of those concerns being the ability to fire warning shots.

In Lum’s interview, Kwitkin says he went directly to Chief Foley and explained that “under no circumstance should we allow warning shots.” Lum then asks what the chief’s response was, and Kwitkin says the response was essentially: the policy would not change, and warning shots were only allowed under certain circumstances.

Lum adds an important fact that shifts the conversation from “Has this been used?” to “Why was it allowed at all?” He reports that records show Sedona officers fired no warning shots in the last five years, which raises the obvious question Lum asks: if it wasn’t being used, why keep it on the books for so long?

“Huge Liability”: Why Most Agencies Say No

Lum brings in Joe Clure, executive director of the Arizona Police Officers Association, who has publicly questioned Sedona PD’s leadership and the prior warning-shot language. When Lum asks why Sedona would leave the policy in place for years, Clure replies bluntly that it appears Sedona has “leadership challenges.”

Clure’s focus, as Lum presents it, is not about tactical creativity. It is about risk management. Clure tells Lum that “risk management should be screaming” because allowing warning shots is “a huge liability” and “very dangerous” for the community, even as a possibility.

Lum’s report then widens to a statewide view. He says FOX 10 Investigates reached out to dozens of law enforcement agencies across Arizona and received more than 40 responses, including major departments like Phoenix, Scottsdale, and Tempe, plus the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office.

Lum reports nearly all of those agencies said warning shots are prohibited, and he gives specific reasons pulled from policies and agency responses. He cites Mesa PD’s policy warning that a warning shot may prompt a suspect to return fire and may endanger innocent bystanders.

Lum shares a response from the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office that cuts right to the point, effectively saying that firing a deadly weapon as a warning is not allowed. He also references Flagstaff PD policy language stating warning shots are rarely effective and pose danger to the officer and community if used in lieu of deadly force against a suspect.

Lum then quantifies what that consensus looks like: 40 out of 44 responding agencies said no, which is 90%. When 90% of departments reach the same conclusion, it’s hard not to see the remaining “yes” policies as a growing outlier rather than a legitimate alternative approach.

From a public trust standpoint, that’s where the tension deepens. If a tactic is so risky that nine out of ten agencies prohibit it, the average person is going to wonder why any agency still wants that option, even if it is wrapped in careful language.

The Holdouts And The “Discretion” Problem

Lum identifies four agencies on the opposite end of the survey, and he is careful to describe how they justify keeping warning shots in policy language. Tolleson Police, Lum reports, says warning shots are generally discouraged unless the officer believes it is necessary, effective, and safe.

Lum says Lake Havasu City PD and the Greenlee County Sheriff’s Office use similar language, again leaving room for a warning shot if an officer believes it meets those conditions.

Paradise Valley PD, Lum reports, also says officers will not generally fire warning shots, but their policy emphasizes that use-of-force decisions are discretionary and must be objectively reasonable based on the circumstances.

That word “discretionary” is where a lot of the debate lives. Lum’s reporting shows that warning-shot policies often try to protect agencies by stacking qualifiers – necessary, effective, safe, reasonable – but qualifiers don’t stop bullets, and they don’t guarantee what happens when adrenaline is high and a split-second decision is made.

Even well-trained officers can be wrong about what is “safe,” especially when the bullet is fired upward. The bullet goes up, and as Lum’s sources stress, it must come down, and where it lands is not something an officer can truly control once the round leaves the barrel.

Shannon’s Law And Why The Legal Questions Won’t Go Away

Lum then pivots into the law he teased earlier: Shannon’s Law. He explains the statute is named after 14-year-old Shannon Smith, who was in the backyard of her Phoenix home when she was killed by a stray bullet in June 1999.

Lum includes the voice of Shannon’s mother, Lory Smith, recounting how her family was told this kind of gunfire happened all the time and was something people had to live with. Lory Smith says the family refused that idea and believed it could be stopped, which eventually led to the law.

Lum reports that in 2000, Shannon’s parents worked to pass Shannon’s Law, making it a felony to negligently fire a gun into the air within the limits of any Arizona municipality. He also notes that the statute includes exceptions, like a special permit from a police chief.

This is where Lum’s report gets especially interesting, because it explains why the question isn’t simply “Is it illegal?” It becomes “Is it illegal for everyone, or only for regular people?” and “Does a police policy create practical permission even when the law warns against the act?”

Lum interviews attorney Benjamin Taylor, who explains that officers may have what is called governmental immunity. 

Taylor says a law enforcement officer can sometimes be immune or exempt from Shannon’s Law if they are using the gun in a reasonable manner, which is where the argument is made that Shannon’s Law may not apply the same way to law enforcement in certain cases.

Taylor, as Lum reports, still emphasizes the obvious risk. Lum’s framing makes the tension clear: a statute meant to stop rounds being fired into the air exists because stray bullets kill people, yet a small number of police policies still preserve an opening for exactly that kind of discharge under certain conditions.

And even if the courts ultimately decide an officer was “reasonable,” the community harm doesn’t rewind. A warning shot that injures someone is not softened by the fact that it was intended as a warning; it will still be experienced as a preventable tragedy.

Policies Are Shifting, Even Without A Statewide Mandate

Lum reports that policing policy in Arizona is “to each their own,” meaning chiefs and sheriffs largely decide what their agencies allow. He highlights one example that shows how fast a policy can change when sunlight hits it.

Lum reports that the Round Valley Police Department changed its policy after FOX 10 asked whether officers could fire warning shots. Lum notes that department had recently been investigated by the Department of Public Safety for possible misconduct issues, which adds urgency to why policy clarity matters.

Interim Chief Jeff Sharpe tells Lum that Round Valley’s original policy said warning shots were generally discouraged unless deemed safe or effective. But Lum reports that immediately after their conversation, Sharpe amended the policy to say warning shots are not authorized.

Lum also points out that AZPOST – the state Peace Officers Standards and Training Board – does not have the authority to direct internal policies of agencies on warning shots. In other words, Lum is showing that the state can train, certify, and set standards in many areas, but it cannot force every agency into one consistent warning-shot rule.

Clure tells Lum it is common sense for chiefs and sheriffs to ban warning shots for good, and he adds a line that should probably be printed on every policy page: just because a police officer is firing the round does not mean the bullet is any less dangerous or any more likely to avoid an unintended victim.

Why This Debate Keeps Growing

Lum’s report shows why the warning-shot argument is not just a technical police policy fight. It’s also a public confidence problem, because citizens see one set of rules for themselves and a different set of exceptions and discretion for government agents.

There’s also a practical reality that makes the policy debate feel urgent. Warning shots are often defended as a way to avoid deadly force, but Lum’s reporting shows many agencies believe the opposite – that warning shots increase danger by provoking return fire and putting bystanders at risk, while also doing little to solve the actual threat.

My own reaction is that the “middle option” can be the most tempting and the most dangerous at the same time. A warning shot can feel like restraint in the moment, but once a round is fired without a clear target and backstop, restraint becomes a story you tell after the fact, not a safety feature you can guarantee.

If Arizona’s agencies keep moving toward bans the way Sedona did and Round Valley just did, Lum’s reporting suggests the trend line is clear. 

The real question may not be whether warning shots are a good idea, but how long the remaining agencies can justify keeping them in policy when the rest of the state – and the logic of Shannon’s Law – keeps pointing in the opposite direction.