CHANDLER, Ariz. — Former Kenosha Police Officer and former Kenosha County Sheriff’s Deputy Michael Rizzo, who is currently suing Kenosha County Eye over our reporting on his restraining order history and misconduct in both the Kenosha Police Department and the Kenosha County Sheriff’s Department, suffered another major legal defeat Friday when an Arizona judge refused to quash an already-issued restraining order following a contested hearing.

The judge made clear that the case ultimately came down to credibility. After hearing testimony and reviewing evidence, the court concluded that the petitioner had met her burden and the restraining order will remain in effect.

“We have in some respects a classic he-said, she-said, which forces the court to judge credibility,” the judge said. A short time later, addressing Rizzo directly, the judge added:
“Quite candidly, Mr. Rizzo, I’m finding that the petitioner [Ms. Stewart] has sufficiently met her burden… based on my assessment of credibility the order will remain in effect.”

According to the hearing, the judge also noted that the behavior described reflected someone “highly invested,” language that underscored why the court sided with the petitioner.

The petitioner, introduced to the court under the pseudonym “Heather Stewart”, also submitted documentation — including materials obtained by Kenosha County Eye through public records — which contradicted portions of Rizzo’s statements. Those contradictions appeared to weigh heavily against him, echoing what occurred in Kenosha County when internal affairs determined Rizzo misled investigators before he resigned in lieu of termination from the Sheriff’s Department.

Because the order survived a contested hearing, the judge stated that federal Brady firearm restrictions now apply, meaning Rizzo is prohibited under federal law from possessing firearms. Practically speaking, this ends any realistic possibility of him ever serving in law enforcement again in the United States.

In her sworn petition requesting the order, Ms. Stewart detailed a pattern of harassment, intimidation, retaliatory behavior, and escalating conduct that she described as obsessive and disruptive to her life and career. She also asserted that Rizzo previously violated an earlier protective order and pled guilty in relation to that case. She stated she filed a harassment report and that a detective is actively investigating ongoing concerns. The order also protects individuals associated with Ms. Stewart professionally, meaning contact with her workplace or related individuals could result in additional criminal exposure.

During Friday’s proceeding, Ms. Stewart challenged Rizzo about whether he used artificial intelligence to assist in drafting his court submissions. Rizzo acknowledged that he did.

Following the ruling, Kenosha County Eye reached out to Rizzo for comment on the judge’s credibility determination, the firearms prohibition, and what the ruling means for his future. Rizzo responded with “no comment.”

Earlier this week, Rizzo contacted Kenosha County Eye offering to dismiss his lawsuit if all articles about his conduct were removed from the website. That offer was firmly rejected.

“My integrity is not for sale,” said KCE Editor Kevin Mathewson. “We will not be bullied into removing truthful reporting, and we intend to pursue sanctions and have you pay my legal fees because you know this is a frivolous lawsuit that was filed in bad faith.”

A judge weighed the evidence.
He judged credibility.
He ruled against Rizzo.
And the public record continues to expand — not in his favor.