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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1505 (2026)

Possession of burglary tools; master key; manipulation key; classification

✓ text as last checked Oct. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. A person commits possession of burglary tools by:

1. Possessing any explosive, tool, instrument or other article adapted or commonly used for committing any form of burglary as defined in sections 13-1506, 13-1507 and 13-1508 and intending to use or permit the use of such an item in the commission of a burglary.

2. Buying, selling, transferring, possessing or using a motor vehicle manipulation key or master key.

B. Subsection A, paragraph 2 of this section does not apply to a person who either:

1. Uses a master key in the course of the person's lawful business or occupation, including licensed vehicle dealers and manufacturers, key manufacturers who are engaged in the business of designing, making, altering, duplicating or repairing locks or keys, locksmiths, loan institutions that finance vehicles and law enforcement.

2. Transfers, possesses or uses no more than one manipulation key, unless the manipulation key is transferred, possessed or used with the intent to commit any theft or felony.

C. Possession of burglary tools is a class 6 felony.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases, 1982–2020 · leading case: State v. Denson, 382 P.3d 1221 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Denson, 382 P.3d 1221 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 11× “Here, because Denson is challenging the facial validity of A.R.S. § 13-1505(A), he “must establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the [statute] would be valid.”
State v. Soza, 464 P.3d 696 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 8× “6 involved “separate offenses based on the nature or type [or number] of tool[s] or a single offense.”
State of Arizona v. Bruce Wayne O'Laughlin Jr., 372 P.3d 342 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 8× “2 Nor does the language indicate whether possession of multiple tools at the same time constitutes multiple crimes. 3 One indication of legislative purpose is its placement in the criminal code—currently and in 1901—in a chapter addressing property crimes such as trespass and…”
MARIO W. v. Kaipio, 265 P.3d 389 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 4× “§ 13-1507 (2010), and, count two, possession of burglary tools, in violation of A.R.S. § 13-1505 (2010). At a pretrial conference, the juvenile court noted that the court had neglected to order that Alexis provide a DNA sample within five days following his advisory hearing.”
State v. Hamblin, 176 P.3d 49 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “When the legislature added subsection (A)(2) to § 13-1506 in 2003, it also added definitions of “manipulation key” and “master key” to § 13-1501 and expanded the crime of possessing burglary tools, defined in A.R.S. § 13-1505, to include “[b]uying, selling, transferring,…”
State v. Agnew, 647 P.2d 1165 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 2× “Although not argued by the state to justify Pima County venue, since we should affirm if venue was proper for reasons other than those urged, we have also considered A.R.S. § 13-1505: “Where a person in one county aids, abets or procures the commission of an offense in another…”
State v. Warner, 696 P.2d 1052 (Or. 1985). “…of burglary in the second degree and resentencing for that crime. 1 Ala Code § 13-2-45 (1977), enacted in 1852; Ariz Rev Stat Ann § 13-1505 (1978), enacted in 1901; Ark Stat Ann § 41-1006 (1947), enacted in 1915, repealed in 1975; Cal Penal Code § 466 (West 1970),…”
State v. Whitlock, No. 1 CA-CR 16-0022 (Ariz. Ct. App. Sept. 20, 2016). · cites it 8× “Thus, even assuming ambiguity in the statutory definition of “manipulation key,” given A.R.S. § 13-1505’s purpose of preventing property crime, and reading A.”
State v. Medina, No. 1 CA-CR 14-0643 (Ariz. Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2015). · cites it 4× “”) section 13-1814(A)(5); (2) count three, possession of burglary tools, a class six felony, in violation of A.R.S. § 13-1505(A)(2), (B)(2); and (3) count four, possession of drug paraphernalia, a class six felony, in violation of A.”
State v. Rogers, No. 1 CA-CR 18-0506 (Ariz. Ct. App. Aug. 1, 2019). · cites it 2× “421, 422 (1977) (finding theft is not a lesser-included offense of burglary). Though Rogers might have been convicted of theft or criminal damage if charged, the State did not charge him with those offenses.”
State v. Meraz-Ochoa, No. 1 CA-CR 19-0208 (Ariz. Ct. App. July 30, 2020). · cites it 2× “His probation officer also moved to revoke probation, alleging that Meraz-Ochoa violated the terms of his probation.”
State v. Gallegos (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 13-1505(A)(1). There is sufficient evidence to support this finding.”
Show all 15 citing cases →
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1505(A): 2 cases
State v. Denson, 382 P.3d 1221 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). “Here, because Denson is challenging the facial validity of A.R.S. § 13-1505(A), he “must establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the [statute] would be valid.”
State of Arizona v. Bruce Wayne O'Laughlin Jr., 372 P.3d 342 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). “2 Nor does the language indicate whether possession of multiple tools at the same time constitutes multiple crimes. 3 One indication of legislative purpose is its placement in the criminal code—currently and in 1901—in a chapter addressing property crimes such as trespass and…”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1505(A)(1): 4 cases
State v. Denson, 382 P.3d 1221 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). “Here, because Denson is challenging the facial validity of A.R.S. § 13-1505(A), he “must establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the [statute] would be valid.”
State of Arizona v. Bruce Wayne O'Laughlin Jr., 372 P.3d 342 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). “2 Nor does the language indicate whether possession of multiple tools at the same time constitutes multiple crimes. 3 One indication of legislative purpose is its placement in the criminal code—currently and in 1901—in a chapter addressing property crimes such as trespass and…”
State v. Gallegos (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). “A.R.S. § 13-1505(A)(1). There is sufficient evidence to support this finding.”
State v. Hernandez, No. 1 CA-CR 13-0751 (Ariz. Ct. App. Aug. 5, 2014).
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1505(A)(2): 4 cases
State v. Whitlock, No. 1 CA-CR 16-0022 (Ariz. Ct. App. Sept. 20, 2016). “Thus, even assuming ambiguity in the statutory definition of “manipulation key,” given A.R.S. § 13-1505’s purpose of preventing property crime, and reading A.”
State v. Medina, No. 1 CA-CR 14-0643 (Ariz. Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2015). “”) section 13-1814(A)(5); (2) count three, possession of burglary tools, a class six felony, in violation of A.R.S. § 13-1505(A)(2), (B)(2); and (3) count four, possession of drug paraphernalia, a class six felony, in violation of A.”
State v. Meraz-Ochoa, No. 1 CA-CR 19-0208 (Ariz. Ct. App. July 30, 2020). “His probation officer also moved to revoke probation, alleging that Meraz-Ochoa violated the terms of his probation.”
State v. Hiemstra, No. 1 CA-CR 12-0678 (Ariz. Ct. App. May 15, 2014).
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1505(B)(2): 1 case
State v. Whitlock, No. 1 CA-CR 16-0022 (Ariz. Ct. App. Sept. 20, 2016). “Thus, even assuming ambiguity in the statutory definition of “manipulation key,” given A.R.S. § 13-1505’s purpose of preventing property crime, and reading A.”
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.