A dated extract from Tucson’s public code-case data contains 78 distinct case numbers, represented by 83 category entries. Of those cases, 65 carry the status “Received.” Mountain Public Ledger collected the records on September 9 using a September 1–7 opening-timestamp window.
The records describe the city’s case workflow. The count is not a total of confirmed violations, affected households or buildings with unresolved conditions. A received case does not, by itself, establish an inspection finding.
“Received” is the most common status
After grouping entries by case number, the status totals are:
| Source status | Distinct cases |
|---|---|
| Received | 65 |
| Active | 7 |
| Assigned | 2 |
| Closed - Administrative | 2 |
| Closed - Resolved | 1 |
| Notice of Violation | 1 |
| Total | 78 |
“Closed - Administrative” and “Closed - Resolved” are different source labels and remain separate here. One case is labeled “Notice of Violation.” This snapshot does not show every earlier notice or action, so that one current label cannot establish the total number of notices issued.
The layer does not provide a structured inspection-result field. We have not treated free-text descriptions as verified inspection findings or independently checked current property conditions.
Why 83 entries represent 78 cases
Three case numbers appear with multiple categories: two have three categories each, and one has two. Within each of those cases, the status, opening and closing timestamps, description and source label agree. The extra rows preserve category relationships; removing them as accidental duplicates would lose information.
Property Maintenance is the largest category, appearing on 38 case-category entries. Minimum Housing appears on 16, followed by Building on 13 and Zoning on nine.
| Source category | Entries |
|---|---|
| Property Maintenance | 38 |
| Minimum Housing | 16 |
| Building | 13 |
| Zoning | 9 |
| Vacant/Nuisance Buildings | 3 |
| Homeless Camp | 2 |
| VANS Program | 1 |
| Other | 1 |
| Category entries | 83 |
These labels describe the source’s classification, not a harmonized list of legal findings. We shortened the double space in the exported “Minimum Housing” label for display. We have not expanded the undefined “VANS Program” abbreviation. Category totals must not be added to claim 83 separate cases.
The date window has a specific limit
The selection uses the source’s opening timestamp from September 1, 2026, inclusive to September 8, exclusive. The service does not supply a timezone reference; its query convention assumes UTC. That does not independently verify how Tucson populated the timestamps. We therefore report an export-defined interval, not a certified count of cases opened during Tucson’s local calendar week.
The source catalog calls this layer “Code Cases — Last 60 Days.” Its underlying rolling-window rule and latest data-refresh time were not exposed in the inspected layer metadata. This article describes the records returned by that layer at collection, not all city enforcement activity during the interval.
Case opening, case closure and the date we collected the file are separate events. Three entries have a closing timestamp; the other 80 leave that field empty. An empty closure field alone does not establish current noncompliance.
How the numbers were checked
Two complete reads returned the same 83 rows, with 83 distinct source row identifiers, 83 distinct case-category pairs and 78 distinct case numbers. Counts matched before, between and after the reads, and the inspected schema was unchanged.
We preserved eight original fields covering row and case identities, status, opening and closing timestamps, description, category and source. We did not request addresses, parcel numbers or coordinates. Original descriptions remain private; this article publishes aggregates only.
Primary sources: Tucson’s code-case layer and schema and the city’s dataset catalog entry. The capture was collected September 9 at 11:09 UTC. A later extract may differ.
The records operation behind this publication also supports commercial property research. This analysis establishes neither sale intent nor financial distress. Editorial standards · Send a documented correction.