of refusal, that person’s driver’s license is subject to suspension. ¶ 16 We also reject Potter’s contention that Officer Stant could not base his belief that she had actual physical control of the car on her actions upon awakening, because the officer caused her to react after she had entered the safe harbor. The officer properly approached Potter’s car and tapped on her window to fulfill his duty to investigate the report of an intoxicated driver. See Zavala, 136 Ariz. at 359, 666 P.2d at 459 (“Nothing we say here should indicate that the officers acted improperly in removing the defendant from the cab of the truck. Indeed, they would have been derelict in their duty had they not done so under these circumstances.”); State v. Bainch, 24 Ariz.App. 140, 142, 536 P.2d 709, 711 (1975) (<HOLDING>). As part of his investigation, the officer
holding that speech was pursuant to official duties because plaintiff conceded at oral argument that as an internal affairs officer he had a broad responsibility to investigate and report police misconduct holding that the duty to investigate applied to a specific murder suspect holding that jailers had no independent duty to investigate holding police officer had duty to investigate the circumstances of an individual seemingly sleeping or unconscious on a bus bench in downtown city late at night recognizing affirmative duty of a police officer to prevent the violation of constitutional rights by another officer