Arizona courts have rejected municipal ordinances that conflict with state statutes in other areas, particularly when such ordinances involve the police powers of the state. For example, in State v. Coles, 234 Ariz. 573, 574,6, 324 P.3d 859, 860 (App. 2014), the Court concluded that A.R.S. 36-2031, which expressly prohibits local governments from criminalizing public drunkenness, preempted Scottsdale City Code 19-8(a), which criminalized public drunkenness. 234 Ariz. at 575, 577,8-9, 17, 324 P.3d at 861, 863. The Court held that the adoption of the state statute "signaled the Legislature's determination that alcoholism should be treated as a disease and not criminalized unless a person under the influence of alcohol engages in specified activities such as driving or operating other types of vehicles or equipment," and that in prohibiting criminal sanctions for certain conduct, the Legislature had addressed an issue of statewide importance. Id. at 577,17, 324 P.3d at 863; See also State ex rel. Baumert v. Municipal Court, 124 Ariz. 159, 160-61, 602 P.2d 827, 828-29 (App. 1979) (invalidating city ordinance criminalizing indecent exposure based on a definition that differed from state statutory definition of indecent exposure).