The Arizona Court of Appeals has upheld a decision in favor of a city and its police officers, who were accused of misconduct during an arrest. The plaintiff, Ray O. Head, had filed a complaint against the City of Mesa and three police officers, alleging excessive force and negligence during his arrest. The case was filed in Maricopa County Superior Court under Judge Adam D. Driggs on February 10, 2026.
The incident in question occurred when Head became intoxicated and threatened a convenience store clerk with a gun before fleeing the scene. Police found him shortly after, holding the gun to his head. Despite negotiations, Head fired into the air and refused to surrender. Officers eventually used beanbag rounds to subdue him, followed by deploying a police dog and tasers during his arrest for attempted armed robbery and other charges.
Head’s lawsuit claimed assault and battery, negligence, gross negligence, and negligent hiring among others. However, he later withdrew the simple negligence claim in favor of gross negligence. The court granted summary judgment for the defendants on all claims except for those voluntarily dismissed by Head himself.
The crux of the legal argument centered around qualified immunity—a doctrine that protects government officials from liability unless they violate clearly established law or act recklessly. The court found no evidence that officers acted outside their discretion or violated established laws when using force against Head.
Head argued that negotiations should have continued after he discarded his weapon and criticized the lack of warning before deploying the police dog. Yet, he failed to provide sufficient evidence that these actions constituted reckless disregard for his rights or violated departmental policies which allow tactical discretion.
Moreover, Head’s claim of gross negligence did not hold as it was based solely on intentional acts by officers—contrary to legal precedents set by Ryan v. Napier which preclude such claims if rooted in intentional conduct.
Ultimately, this decision reaffirms protections offered by qualified immunity while highlighting complexities involved in assessing law enforcement actions during volatile situations like arrests involving firearms.
Representing Ray O. Head were attorneys David L. Abney from Ahwatukee Legal Office P.C., Phoenix and J. Scott Halverson from Law Offices of J. Scott Halverson P.C., Tempe; Kim S. Alvarado represented the City of Mesa through its Attorney’s Office; Judges Anni Hill Foster delivered this opinion with concurrence from Presiding Judge James B Morse Jr., Judge Veronika Fabian; Case ID: No 1 CA-CV 24-0842
Source: 1CACV240842_Head_v_City_of_Mesa_Opinion_Arizona_Court_of_Appeals.pdf