Cited by

See Law Enforcement, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) (“The detection and punishment of violations of the law”; “[p]olice officers and other members of the executive branch charged with carrying out and enforcing the criminal law.”); (functions of law enforcement agencies include crime prevention and broader protective functions).

We cannot say “beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” (quoting 5A C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1357, at 325).

¶ 20 (App. 1998) (stating that a motion to dismiss should be denied unless it is “beyond doubt” that the plaintiff could prove no set of facts which would entitle him to relief) (–06 (App. 1991)).

Law enforcement agencies perform all such activities subject to the duty that Austin described: “to act as 7 SANDOVAL v. TEMPE Decision of the Court would a reasonably careful and prudent police [agency] in the same circumstances.” (alteration in original) (quoting Austin, 140 Ariz. at 581-82, 684 P.2d at 153-54); (“A policeman has the duty to be alert to suspicious circumstances and to investigate if necessary, provided that he is acting w

Despite the broad pronouncements of duty visá- , on which Vas *315 quez and the dissent also rely, this court subsequently ruled in Morton that no relationship giving rise to a duty existed between the family of a decedent and a police agency investigating his death.

¶19 P.2d 1253 (App. 1991), to support her argument that the language in Austin is broad enough to impose a duty in this case.

Here, taking Rowland’s assertions as true, Newman v. Maricopa County, 167 Ariz. 501, he seeks recovery for injuries resulting from an accident caused by a Kellogg employee.

Motors Corp., , , (Only if “it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief’ should a motion to dismiss be granted (citing 5A C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1357, at 325 (1990)).).

4 We therefore conclude that the motion to dismiss ought not have been granted because it was not “beyond doubt that the plaintiff[s] [could] prove no set of facts in support of [their] claim[s] which would entitle [them] to relief.” -06 , -58 (App.1991), quoting 5A C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1357, at 325.

at 582 , 684 P.2d at 154 ; -05 , -57 (App.1991) (in investigating hidden danger on private land, sheriff had a duty to others who might go on the land).

5 -72 , 866 P,2d 1356, 1357-58 (App.1993); -05 , -57 (App.1991)

We simply conclude “that it does not appeal' ‘beyond doubt that [TAA] can prove no set of facts in support of [its] claim which would entitle [it] to relief.’” -06 , -58 (App.1991) (quoting 5A C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1357 at 325).