Skip to content

Session Expired

Your session has expired. Please sign in again to continue where you left off.

Sign In Again

AZ SB1293: GIITEM subaccount; predictive policing technology

Vetoed Arizona · 2015 session

Last verified Oct 8, 2026 · official bill text

SB1293 · where it stands

This bill did not become law (vetoed) · last action Apr 13, 2015.

What do these statuses mean?
Introduced
Filed in the legislature; may be waiting for a committee hearing.
Passed a chamber
Approved by one or both chambers; awaiting further action.
Enacted
Signed into law, or became law without a signature or over a veto.
Effective date
The date the law says it takes effect. Once it has passed, the page shows "Effective" and the date. A court order can still block a law; if we know of one, the summary says so.
Dead / vetoed
Vetoed, failed, or the session ended without action.

In one paragraph

Vetoed. Arizona's SB 1293 (2015) would have appropriated $1,150,000 from the concealed weapons permit fund in fiscal year 2015-2016 to the Department of Administration for block grants to city police agencies for a pilot program to buy and maintain predictive policing technology software: software that generates crime predictions by applying mathematical algorithms and criminal behavior theory to past crime data and recalibrates automatically. It also directed GIITEM border security subaccount money to county sheriffs. The Governor vetoed it April 13, 2015.

Plain-English summary, written with AI assistance. The official text controls.

What it means for business

None: the bill was vetoed and never became law. It would have funded city police purchases of predictive policing software from vendors chosen by the Department of Administration through an emergency procurement.

Key provisions

  1. $1,150,000 from the concealed weapons permit fund in FY 2015-2016 to the Department of Administration for block grants to police agencies in specified cities (each capped at the city's proportional population share) for a predictive policing software pilot; leftover money for other municipal agencies that request it
  2. The Department of Administration would have made an emergency procurement to select one or more software vendors, and the grants would be used with those vendors
  3. Predictive policing technology software: uses predictive capabilities based on historical data, current crime patterns and forward mathematical modeling; generates predictions by applying mathematical algorithms and criminal behavior theory to large data sets of past crime data; automatically recalibrates when new crime information is added
  4. The software could not use personally identifiable information to create predictions, had to customize predictions by location, time of day and crime type, be web-accessed and cloud-hosted, and have references from at least five law enforcement agencies
  5. Each agency receiving money would have reported to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee by December 31, 2015 and June 30, 2016 on the pilot's status, spending and the software's effectiveness
  6. Separately, the Department of Public Safety would have distributed $1,858,500 of the FY 2015-2016 GIITEM border security and law enforcement subaccount to 15 county sheriffs and submitted the subaccount's expenditure plan to the committee for review
  7. Final Senate passage April 2, 2015 (17-13, without the emergency clause); vetoed April 13, 2015

Latest legislative action

Apr 13, 2015. Vetoed by Governor

Sponsors (showing 5 of 23)

NameRole
D Primary
Primary
Primary
R Primary
R Primary

Amendments (5)

  • SENATE PROPOSED AMENDMENT: Public Safety, Military and Technology Not adopted 2015-02-03
  • SENATE ADOPTED AMENDMENT: Public Safety, Military and Technology Adopted 2015-02-03
  • SENATE ADOPTED AMENDMENT: Smith flr amend (ref Bill) adopted Adopted 2015-02-25
  • HOUSE PROPOSED AMENDMENT: Appropriations Not adopted
  • HOUSE ADOPTED AMENDMENT: Appropriations Adopted 2015-03-25

Topics and industries

Affected industries

This page is general information, not legal advice. Summaries are AI-assisted and may contain errors; read the statute for the controlling text and talk to a lawyer about your situation. Full disclaimer · Report an error