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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2316.01 (2026)

Unlawful possession of an access device; classification

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

13-2316.01. Unlawful possession of an access device; classification

A. A person commits unlawful possession of an access device by knowingly possessing, trafficking in, publishing or controlling an access device without the consent of the issuer, owner or authorized user and with the intent to use or distribute that access device.

B. The possession, trafficking, publishing or control of five or more access devices without the consent of the issuer, owner or authorized user may give rise to an inference that the person possessing, trafficking in, publishing or controlling the access devices intended to use or distribute the devices.

C. Unlawful possession of one hundred or more access devices is a class 4 felony.  Unlawful possession of five or more but fewer than one hundred access devices is a class 5 felony.  Unlawful possession of fewer than five access devices is a class 6 felony.  

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 2007–2007 · leading case: State v. Sharma, 165 P.3d 693 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Sharma, 165 P.3d 693 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 6× “Unlawful Possession of Access Devices ¶ 11 Defendant was charged with knowingly possessing more than five but less than one hundred access devices in violation of AR.S. § 13-2316.01 (2001). He argues on appeal that the trial court misinterpreted § 13-2316.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2316.01(A): 1 case
State v. Sharma, 165 P.3d 693 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). “Unlawful Possession of Access Devices ¶ 11 Defendant was charged with knowingly possessing more than five but less than one hundred access devices in violation of AR.S. § 13-2316.01 (2001). He argues on appeal that the trial court misinterpreted § 13-2316.”
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.