A. A person commits aggravated taking the identity of another person or entity if the person knowingly takes, purchases, manufactures, records, possesses or uses any personal identifying information or entity identifying information of either:
1. Three or more other persons or entities, including real or fictitious persons or entities, without the consent of the other persons or entities, with the intent to obtain or use the other persons' or entities' identities for any unlawful purpose or to cause loss to the persons or entities whether or not the persons or entities actually suffer any economic loss.
2. Another person or entity, including a real or fictitious person or entity, without the consent of that other person or entity, with the intent to obtain or use the other person's or entity's identity for any unlawful purpose and causes another person or entity to suffer an economic loss of one thousand dollars or more.
3. Another person, including a real or fictitious person, with the intent to obtain employment.
B. A person commits knowingly accepting the identity of another person if the person, in hiring an employee, knowingly does both of the following:
1. Accepts any personal identifying information of another person from an individual and knows that the individual is not the actual person identified by that information.
2. Uses that identity information for the purpose of determining whether the individual who presented that identity information has the legal right or authorization under federal law to work in the United States as described and determined under the processes and procedures under 8 United States Code section 1324a.
C. In an action for aggravated taking the identity of another person or entity under subsection A, paragraph 1 of this section, proof of possession out of the regular course of business of the personal identifying information or entity identifying information of three or more other persons or entities may give rise to an inference that the personal identifying information or entity identifying information of the three or more other persons or entities was possessed for an unlawful purpose.
D. This section does not apply to a violation of section 4-241 by a person who is under twenty-one years of age.
E. Aggravated taking the identity of another person or entity or knowingly accepting the identity of another person is a class 3 felony.
Notes of Decisions
Puente Arizona v. Arpaio, 76 F. Supp. 3d 833 (D. Ariz. 2015).
· cites it 14× “Arizona also created a new crime of aggravated identity theft under A.R.S. § 13-2009. 2005 Ariz. Legis. Serv.”
State of Iowa v. Martha Aracely Martinez, 896 N.W.2d 737 (Iowa 2017).
· cites it 2× “at 844 (quoting Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-2009 ). Another Arizona statute provided that a person commits identity theft by taking, purchasing, manufacturing, recording, possessing, or using personal identifying information with the intent to engage in an unlawful purpose or to…”
State v. Coleman (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 6× “" A.R.S. § 13-2009(A)(1). In such actions, proof the defendant possessed identifying information of three or more persons outside of the regular course of business "may give rise to an inference that the personal identifying information .”
State v. Eisenmann (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 5× “§ 13-2008, which is the lesser- included offense of A.R.S. § 13-2009 and the basis for Count 61.”
State v. Dickenson (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 4× “”) section 13-2008; one count of aggravated identity theft (count 12), a class three felony in violation of A.R.S. § 13-2009(A)(1); one count of money laundering in the second degree (count 2), a class three felony in violation of A.”
State v. Edlund (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 2× “1 A.R.S. §§ 13-2009(A)(1), 13-1504. A six-day jury trial followed.”
State v. Alford (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 13-2009. Alford pled not guilty on the single count.”
State v. Soriano-Torres (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “Although the legislature amended A.R.S. § 13-2009 in 2014, those revisions do not affect section (A)(3) of the statute, which is the applicable provision in this case.”
Jennifer S. v. Dcs, Z.S. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
“Decision of the Court ¶3 When the child was born in June 2013, both Mother and the child tested positive for methamphetamine. The child was premature and significantly underweight, but was eventually sent home with a safety monitor to live with Mother, who was unemployed and…”
State v. Hollins (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
“”) §§ 13-2009 (2014), -2001 (2015), -702 (2009), -801 (2015).”
State v. Romero-Gomez (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
“or § 13-2009(A)(3). Id. at *17. The parties to that litigation then entered a settlement agreement, and neither appealed the court's order.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2009(A) — 2 cases
Puente Arizona v. Arpaio, 76 F. Supp. 3d 833 (D. Ariz. 2015).
“Arizona also created a new crime of aggravated identity theft under A.R.S. § 13-2009. 2005 Ariz. Legis. Serv.”
State v. Eisenmann (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
“§ 13-2008, which is the lesser- included offense of A.R.S. § 13-2009 and the basis for Count 61.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2009(A)(1) — 3 cases
State v. Dickenson (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
“”) section 13-2008; one count of aggravated identity theft (count 12), a class three felony in violation of A.R.S. § 13-2009(A)(1); one count of money laundering in the second degree (count 2), a class three felony in violation of A.”
State v. Edlund (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
“1 A.R.S. §§ 13-2009(A)(1), 13-1504. A six-day jury trial followed.”
State v. Coleman (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020).
“" A.R.S. § 13-2009(A)(1). In such actions, proof the defendant possessed identifying information of three or more persons outside of the regular course of business "may give rise to an inference that the personal identifying information .”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2009(A)(3) — 2 cases
Puente Arizona v. Arpaio, 76 F. Supp. 3d 833 (D. Ariz. 2015).
“Arizona also created a new crime of aggravated identity theft under A.R.S. § 13-2009. 2005 Ariz. Legis. Serv.”
State v. Romero-Gomez (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
“or § 13-2009(A)(3). Id. at *17. The parties to that litigation then entered a settlement agreement, and neither appealed the court's order.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2009(C) — 1 case
State v. Coleman (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020).
“" A.R.S. § 13-2009(A)(1). In such actions, proof the defendant possessed identifying information of three or more persons outside of the regular course of business "may give rise to an inference that the personal identifying information .”
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.