The Necessity Defense in Arizona: When Breaking the Law Is the Right Thing to Do
Most people never imagine themselves on the wrong side of the law. They go about their lives, follow the rules, and try to do what’s right. But what happens when doing the right thing technically violates the law?
Imagine you see a dog trapped in a hot car, or you hear someone crying out for help in a locked home. Your instinct — and your conscience — tell you to act. You break a window or step onto private property to prevent harm. Suddenly, you’re accused of trespassing or property damage.
That’s where the necessity defense comes in. It’s a powerful but often misunderstood concept in Arizona law — one that recognizes that sometimes breaking the law is justified when it prevents something worse from happening.
What Is the Necessity Defense?
Arizona law allows what’s called an affirmative defense of necessity, meaning a person admits to the act but argues that it was legally justified under the circumstances.
Under A.R.S. § 13-417, a person isn’t criminally responsible if:
They reasonably believed their conduct was necessary to avoid imminent public or private injury, and
The urgency of avoiding that injury clearly outweighed the harm the law seeks to prevent.
In plain terms, necessity applies when someone breaks the law to prevent a greater harm — and does so out of genuine, reasonable concern.
Everyday Examples of Necessity
You might think necessity applies only in dramatic situations — like pulling someone from a burning car. But in practice, it can come up in very human, everyday moments:
Helping an injured animal: A passerby enters a yard to free a dog tangled in fencing or stuck in distress.
Protecting a person: Someone breaks into a locked car to rescue a child or pet from extreme heat.
Responding to danger: A driver speeds or ignores traffic signs to get a gravely injured person to the hospital.
Preventing harm: A neighbor enters property fearing that an elderly resident may have fallen or become unresponsive inside.
These acts may technically violate laws against trespassing or property damage — but the reason behind the action matters deeply. Arizona’s necessity defense is designed to protect those who act out of urgency and compassion, not malice.
How Courts Evaluate Necessity
Necessity isn’t a free pass. Courts look carefully at intent, reasonableness, and alternatives.
To claim necessity successfully, the person’s actions must show that:
The threat or harm was immediate or imminent — not just speculative.
The person had no reasonable legal alternative to breaking the law.
The person didn’t create the emergency through their own conduct.
The harm avoided was greater than the harm caused.
For instance, entering a fenced yard because you believed someone’s pet was being attacked might be viewed differently than entering simply out of curiosity or irritation over barking. The key question is whether your actions were reasonable under the circumstances.
Intent Matters More Than You Think
In criminal law, intent is everything. Two people can do the same physical act — step onto someone else’s property — yet one might be criminally liable while the other is not.
The difference lies in why they did it. The law exists to punish harmful intent, not genuine attempts to help others. The necessity defense embodies this principle: that sometimes compassion and common sense should outweigh rigid application of the rules.
That’s especially true in cases involving Good Samaritans, where someone intervenes to help a person or animal in distress. Arizona’s Good Samaritan laws primarily protect medical aid providers, but necessity fills the gap when compassion leads someone to act before harm can occur.
Prosecutorial Discretion and Judicial Compassion
Not every case involving necessity has to go to trial. Prosecutors and judges have discretion — and they often exercise it when they see that a defendant acted reasonably and without ill intent.
In these cases, the justice system can serve its higher purpose: promoting fairness, humanity, and community trust. Dismissing charges that criminalize well-intentioned behavior reinforces public faith that the law isn’t blind to compassion.
Why the Necessity Defense Matters
The necessity defense isn’t about excusing bad behavior; it’s about recognizing that life doesn’t always fit neatly into statutes.
Emergencies happen. People act out of empathy, fear, or a sense of duty. And sometimes, in those rare moments, the law must bend just enough to accommodate human decency.
Criminal defense attorneys see this intersection of law and morality every day. It’s our role to make sure the court sees the full picture — not just what happened, but why it happened. Because context matters, and so does compassion.
A Final Thought
If you ever find yourself facing charges for something you did out of genuine concern — to help a person, an animal, or your community — know that Arizona law provides room for your story to be heard.
The necessity defense reminds us that justice isn’t only about rules. It’s also about reason, empathy, and recognizing that sometimes the most human thing to do isn’t always the most lawful one.
Amanda J. Bynum
Tucson Criminal Defense Attorney
Protecting people who act with compassion and courage, even when the law gets it wrong.
