Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 13
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1424 (2026)

Voyeurism; classification

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

13-1424. Voyeurism; classification

A. It is unlawful to knowingly invade the privacy of another person without the knowledge of the other person for the purpose of sexual stimulation.

B. It is unlawful for a person to disclose, display, distribute or publish a photograph, videotape, film or digital recording that is made in violation of subsection A of this section without the consent or knowledge of the person depicted.

C. For the purposes of this section, a person's privacy is invaded if both of the following apply:

1. The person has a reasonable expectation that the person will not be photographed, videotaped, filmed, digitally recorded or otherwise viewed or recorded.

2. The person is photographed, videotaped, filmed, digitally recorded or otherwise viewed, with or without a device, either:

(a) While the person is in a state of undress or partial dress.

(b) While the person is engaged in sexual intercourse or sexual contact.

(c) While the person is urinating or defecating.

(d) In a manner that directly or indirectly captures or allows the viewing of the person's genitalia, buttock or female breast, whether clothed or unclothed, that is not otherwise visible to the public.

D. This section does not apply to any of the following:

1. Photographing, videotaping, filming or digitally recording for security purposes if notice of the use of the photographing, videotaping, filming or digital recording equipment is clearly posted in the location and the location is one in which the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.

2. Photographing, videotaping, filming or digitally recording by correctional officials for security reasons or in connection with the investigation of alleged misconduct of persons on the premises of a jail or prison.

3. Photographing, videotaping, filming or digitally recording by law enforcement officers pursuant to an investigation, which is otherwise lawful.

4. The use of a child monitoring device as defined in section 13-3001.

E. A violation of subsection A or B of this section is a class 5 felony, except that a violation of subsection B of this section is a class 4 felony if the person depicted is recognizable.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1971–2026 · leading case: State v. Blazak, 560 P.2d 54 (Ariz. 1977).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Blazak, 560 P.2d 54 (Ariz. 1977). · cites it 6× “A.R.S. § 13-1424 permits a peace officer to apply to a magistrate for a detention order for identifying physical characteristics.”
State of Arizona v. Agustin Gonzalez Gongora, 330 P.3d 368 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 12× “The jury found him guilty pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-1424, specifically subsection C(2)(d), which prohibits “viewing a person in a manner that .”
State of Arizona v. Richard Allen Reed, 456 P.3d 453 (Ariz. 2020). · cites it 2× “BACKGROUND ¶3 The trial court convicted Reed of one count of voyeurism, see A.R.S. § 13-1424, and the court of appeals affirmed.”
State v. Grijalva, 533 P.2d 533 (Ariz. 1975). · cites it 6× “In neither case could the victim make an in-court identification of the defendant as the assailant; Prior to trial, the defense sought to suppress certain evidence taken pursuant to ARS § 13-1424, including photographs of the defendant, his fingerprints, and six hairs from his…”
Long v. Garrett, 527 P.2d 1240 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1974). · cites it 30× “Petitioner's special action challenges the constitutionality of A.R.S. § 13-1424, both on its face and as construed and applied, in that it violates the petitioner's rights under the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and similar provisions…”
State v. Wedding, 831 P.2d 398 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “§ 13-3905 (then A.R.S. § 13-1424) in State v. Grijalva, 111 Ariz.”
People v. Marshall, 244 N.W.2d 451 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976). “9 5 Ariz Rev Stat Ann § 13-1424 (Supp, 1973).”
State v. Miller, 564 P.2d 1246 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 2× “DETERMINATION OF THE TRUTH OF A PRIOR CONVICTION The state finally was allowed to add two allegations of prior convictions for child molesting to the indictment.”
In Re the Appeal in Pima Cnty. Anonymous, Juv. Action No. J 24818-2, 515 P.2d 600 (Ariz. 1973). · cites it 2× “Indeed, the only characteristic that appellant possessed in common with the alleged assailant was being a white male of junior high school age.”
State v. Fierro, 489 P.2d 713 (Ariz. 1971). “(See § 13-1424 A.R.S. enacted after the lineups in this case.”
State v. Groshong, 852 P.2d 1251 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “§ 13-3905, a blood sample can also be obtained pursuant to an order issued under that statute.”
Dragomir (D. Ariz. 2026). · cites it 8× “Background 15 In filing his TAC, Plaintiff alleges that newly found evidence revealed that 16 Defendants made “statements falsely accusing [Plaintiff] of criminal conduct” and “falsely 17 alleged that [Plaintiff] possessed recordings of coworkers engaging in sexual activity, 18…”
Show all 18 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1424(A) — 5 cases
State of Arizona v. Agustin Gonzalez Gongora, 330 P.3d 368 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). “The jury found him guilty pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-1424, specifically subsection C(2)(d), which prohibits “viewing a person in a manner that .”
Long v. Garrett, 527 P.2d 1240 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1974). “Petitioner's special action challenges the constitutionality of A.R.S. § 13-1424, both on its face and as construed and applied, in that it violates the petitioner's rights under the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and similar provisions…”
State v. Harwood (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
State v. Dickson (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
Anthony v. United States (D. Ariz. 2022).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1424(A)(3) — 2 cases
State v. Blazak, 560 P.2d 54 (Ariz. 1977). “A.R.S. § 13-1424 permits a peace officer to apply to a magistrate for a detention order for identifying physical characteristics.”
Long v. Garrett, 527 P.2d 1240 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1974). “Petitioner's special action challenges the constitutionality of A.R.S. § 13-1424, both on its face and as construed and applied, in that it violates the petitioner's rights under the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and similar provisions…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1424(C) — 1 case
State v. Dickson (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1424(C)(1) — 1 case
State of Arizona v. Agustin Gonzalez Gongora, 330 P.3d 368 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). “The jury found him guilty pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-1424, specifically subsection C(2)(d), which prohibits “viewing a person in a manner that .”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1424(C)(2) — 1 case
State of Arizona v. Agustin Gonzalez Gongora, 330 P.3d 368 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). “The jury found him guilty pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-1424, specifically subsection C(2)(d), which prohibits “viewing a person in a manner that .”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1424(E) — 2 cases
State of Arizona v. Agustin Gonzalez Gongora, 330 P.3d 368 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). “The jury found him guilty pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-1424, specifically subsection C(2)(d), which prohibits “viewing a person in a manner that .”
State v. Harwood (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
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.