13-1412. Unlawful sexual conduct; peace officers; classification; definitions
A. A peace officer commits unlawful sexual conduct by knowingly engaging in sexual contact, oral sexual contact or sexual intercourse with any person who is in the officer's custody or a person who the officer knows or has reason to know is the subject of an investigation.
B. Unlawful sexual conduct with a victim who is under fifteen years of age is a class 2 felony. Unlawful sexual conduct with a victim who is at least fifteen years of age but less than eighteen years of age is a class 3 felony. All other unlawful sexual conduct is a class 5 felony.
C. This section does not apply to either of the following:
1. Any direct or indirect touching or manipulating of the genitals, anus or female breast that occurs during a lawful search.
2. An officer who is married to or who is in a romantic or sexual relationship with the person at the time of the arrest or investigation. The following factors may be considered in determining whether the relationship between the victim and the defendant is currently a romantic or sexual relationship:
(a) The type of relationship.
(b) The length of the relationship.
(c) The frequency of the interaction between the victim and the defendant.
(d) If the relationship has terminated, the length of time since the termination.
D. For the purposes of this section:
1. "Custody" includes the imposition of actual or constructive restraint pursuant to an on-site arrest, a court order or any contact in which a reasonable person would not feel free to leave. Custody does not include detention in a correctional facility, a juvenile detention facility or a state hospital.
2. "Peace officer" has the same meaning prescribed in section 1-215 but does not include adult or juvenile corrections or detention officers.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
10
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1982–2025 · leading case:
State v. Atwood, 832 P.2d 593 (Ariz. 1992).
State v. Atwood, 832 P.2d 593 (Ariz. 1992).
· cites it 6× “March 25, 1965, renumbered § 13-1412 and amended by Laws 1977, Ch. 142, § 68, eff.”
Frank Atwood v. Charles Ryan, 870 F.3d 1033 (9th Cir. 2017).
“Laws 731 (then codified at Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1412 ). Therefore, Atwood argued that his 1975 conviction was not a crime for which “a sentence of life imprisonment or death was imposable” under Arizona law because “life imprisonment” was not “imposable” at the timé of…”
Sherman v. Del. Dep't of Pub. Saf., 190 A.3d 148 (Del. 2018).
“160 (West) (defining "custodial sexual misconduct," a class C felony, to include "[w]hen the victim is being detained, under arrest[,] or in the custody of a law enforcement officer and the perpetrator is a law enforcement officer"); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-1412 (defining…”
State v. Conroy, 642 P.2d 873 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982).
· cites it 2× “LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE Appellant next contends the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury, as requested, on the lesser included offense of lewd and lascivious acts in violation of A.R.S. § 13-1412. A defendant is only entitled to a lesser included offense instruction…”
Atwood v. Schriro, 489 F. Supp. 2d 982 (D. Ariz. 2007).
· cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 13-1412 (amended by Laws 1977, Ch.”
United States v. Henry Nash Riley, 183 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 1999).
“515 (1997) (bigamy); Ariz. Rev.Stat. Ann. §§ 13-1412, 13-1409, (West 1998) (lewd and lascivious acts, open and notorious cohabitation or adultery).”
State v. McCuin, 808 P.2d 332 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 2× “I do not believe, however, that this purpose is served when registration is applied to crimes classified as class 3 misdemeanors, such as adultery, § 13-1408; open and notorious cohabitation, § 13-1409; lewd and lascivious acts, § 13-1412; and the infamous crime against nature,…”
State v. Cramer, 851 P.2d 147 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992).
“The state urges that the comprehensiveness of the criminal code reveals the legislative intent to supplant the criminal common law with the new criminal code.”
State v. Stoner, No. 1 CA-CR 24-0404-PRPC (Ariz. Ct. App. Mar. 25, 2025).
· cites it 4× “” State v. Bennett, 213 Ariz. 562 , 567 ¶ 21 (2006) (citing Strickland v.”
Frank Atwood v. Charles Ryan, No. 14-99002 (9th Cir. Sept. 13, 2017).
“Therefore, Atwood argued that his 1975 conviction was not a crime for which “a sentence of life imprisonment or death was imposable” under Arizona law because “life imprisonment” was not “imposable” at the time of sentencing.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.