A.R.S. § 11-1025 to the list brings the total to three clear legal violations that the authorities are committing by pursuing Snuggles' euthanasia. [1]
The specific language in Arizona Revised Statutes § 11-1025 explicitly blocks the exact visual assessment and discrimination tactics that local jurisdictions often use to justify condemning specific dogs. [1]

The 3 Explicit Laws Being Violated:

1. VIOLATION: A.R.S. § 11-1025(C) – Breed Discrimination Ban
The Law: Subsection C of this state statute explicitly commands: "The breed of a dog may not be considered in findings of facts or conclusions of law entered by a court, administrative law judge, hearing officer, arbitrator or other legal decision-maker regarding whether a dog is aggressive or vicious..."
The Breach: Snuggles is an Anatolian Shepherd—a massive livestock guardian breed. Authorities often look at large, powerful guardian breeds and inherently classify them as a higher threat or "too dangerous to rehabilitate" based purely on size and genetics. By doing this, they are explicitly violating the state's mandate that forbids judges and officers from using a dog’s breed to determine if it is "vicious". [1, 2]

2. VIOLATION: A.R.S. § 11-1027 – Absolute Statutory Defense of Provocation [1]
The Law: This state law mandates that proof of provocation is an absolute defense against a dog being legally penalized. The legal threshold hinges on whether a reasonable person would expect the action to startle or spook a dog.
The Breach: Being suddenly blind-sided and tapped from behind meets the legal definition of provocation. The city is violating state law by treating a startled reflex as a malicious, unprovoked attack. [1, 2, 3, 4]

3. VIOLATION: Pima County Code § 6.04.150 – Local Vicious Definition [1]
The Law: The county's own municipal ordinance states that an animal can only be declared vicious or dangerous if it acts "without provocation."
The Breach: The city attorney's office is breaking its own code. They are actively choosing to ignore the text of their local law, the victim's testimony clearing the dog, and the professional behaviorist's assessment just to force a zero-tolerance narrative. [1]