13-2319. Smuggling; classification; definitions
A. It is unlawful for a person to intentionally engage in the smuggling of human beings for profit or commercial purpose.
B. A violation of this section is a class 4 felony.
C. Notwithstanding subsection B of this section, a violation of this section:
1. Is a class 2 felony if the human being who is smuggled is under eighteen years of age and is not accompanied by a family member over eighteen years of age or the offense involved the use of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument.
2. Is a class 3 felony if the offense involves the use or threatened use of deadly physical force and the person is not eligible for suspension of sentence, probation, pardon or release from confinement on any other basis except pursuant to section 31-233, subsection A or B until the sentence imposed by the court is served, the person is eligible for release pursuant to section 41-1604.07 or the sentence is commuted.
D. Chapter 10 of this title does not apply to a violation of subsection C, paragraph 1 of this section.
E. Notwithstanding any other law, in the enforcement of this section a peace officer may lawfully stop any person who is operating a motor vehicle if the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe the person is in violation of any civil traffic law.
F. For the purposes of this section:
1. "Family member" means the person's parent, grandparent, sibling or any other person who is related to the person by consanguinity or affinity to the second degree.
2. "Procurement of transportation" means any participation in or facilitation of transportation and includes:
(a) Providing services that facilitate transportation including travel arrangement services or money transmission services.
(b) Providing property that facilitates transportation, including a weapon, a vehicle or other means of transportation or false identification, or selling, leasing, renting or otherwise making available a drop house as defined in section 13-2322.
3. "Smuggling of human beings" means the transportation, procurement of transportation or use of property or real property by a person or an entity that knows or has reason to know that the person or persons transported or to be transported are not United States citizens, permanent resident aliens or persons otherwise lawfully in this state or have attempted to enter, entered or remained in the United States in violation of law.
Notes of Decisions
United States v. Arizona, 703 F. Supp. 2d 980 (D. Ariz. 2010).
· cites it 20× “1070 2 A.R.S. § 13-2319: amending the crime of human smuggling Portion of Section 5 of S.”
State v. Barragan-Sierra, 196 P.3d 879 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 17× “L AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1 ¶2 On July 3, 2006, a grand jury issued an indictment, charging Appellant and three co-defendants with one count of conspiracy to commit smuggling: JUAN BARRAGAN-CIERRA, 2 on or between the 20th day of June, 2006 and the 23rd day of June, 2006, with…”
We Are Am. v. Maricopa Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, 297 F.R.D. 373 (D. Ariz. 2013).
· cites it 47× “More specifically, the plaintiffs request that the “[cjonvictions secured against persons for conspiring to transport themselves, and no one else, in purported violation of Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 13-2319 are inconsistent with the Supremacy Clause, U.”
Melendres v. Arpaio, 989 F. Supp. 2d 822 (D. Ariz. 2013).
· cites it 10× “Prioritization of Immigration Enforcement and the ICE Memorandum In 2006, the MCSO created a specialized unit — the Human Smuggling Unit (“HSU”) — to enforce a 2005 human smuggling law, A.R.S. § 13-2319 (2007). (Doc. 530 at 4 ¶¶ 27-28.”
Ortega-Melendres v. Arpaio, 836 F. Supp. 2d 959 (D. Ariz. 2011).
· cites it 10× “A.R.S. § 13-2319 (2010). The human smuggling statute reads: “It is unlawful for a person to intentionally engage in the smuggling of human beings 'for profit or commercial purpose.”
State v. Flores, 188 P.3d 706 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 3× “Arizona Revised Statute section 13-2319(A) states in relevant part: "It is unlawful for a person to intentionally engage in the smuggling of human beings for profit or commercial purpose.”
We Are Am./Somos Am. v. Maricopa Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, 594 F. Supp. 2d 1104 (D. Ariz. 2009).
· cites it 20× “The court assumes familiarity with the prior proceedings in this action, which is challenging defendants’ policy of prosecuting individual undocumented immigrants for conspiring to smuggle themselves in violation of Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 13-2319. 1 In We Are America/Somos America…”
Manuel De Jesus Ortega Melendr v. Joseph M. Arpaio, 695 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2012).
“Nor does illegal presence, without more, give rise to reasonable suspicion of violation of Arizona’s human smuggling statute, Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 13-2319, as the Defendants maintain.”
United States v. Arizona, 119 F. Supp. 3d 955 (D. Ariz. 2014).
· cites it 76× “202) concerning A.R.S. § 13-2319. The Court heard oral argument oh the Motion on November 3, 2014.”
Allen v. Sanders, 346 P.3d 30 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 2× “See generally A.R.S. § 13-2319(F)(1) (Supp. 2014) (smuggling; classification; definitions; " 'Family member’ means the person's parent, grandparent, sibling or any other person who is related to the person by consanguinity or affinity to the second degree.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2319(A) — 5 cases
Ortega-Melendres v. Arpaio, 836 F. Supp. 2d 959 (D. Ariz. 2011).
“A.R.S. § 13-2319 (2010). The human smuggling statute reads: “It is unlawful for a person to intentionally engage in the smuggling of human beings 'for profit or commercial purpose.”
State v. Barragan-Sierra, 196 P.3d 879 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
“L AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1 ¶2 On July 3, 2006, a grand jury issued an indictment, charging Appellant and three co-defendants with one count of conspiracy to commit smuggling: JUAN BARRAGAN-CIERRA, 2 on or between the 20th day of June, 2006 and the 23rd day of June, 2006, with…”
State v. Flores, 188 P.3d 706 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
“Arizona Revised Statute section 13-2319(A) states in relevant part: "It is unlawful for a person to intentionally engage in the smuggling of human beings for profit or commercial purpose.”
We Are Am. v. Maricopa Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, 297 F.R.D. 373 (D. Ariz. 2013).
“More specifically, the plaintiffs request that the “[cjonvictions secured against persons for conspiring to transport themselves, and no one else, in purported violation of Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 13-2319 are inconsistent with the Supremacy Clause, U.”
United States v. Arizona, 119 F. Supp. 3d 955 (D. Ariz. 2014).
“202) concerning A.R.S. § 13-2319. The Court heard oral argument oh the Motion on November 3, 2014.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2319(D)(2) — 1 case
State v. Flores, 188 P.3d 706 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
“Arizona Revised Statute section 13-2319(A) states in relevant part: "It is unlawful for a person to intentionally engage in the smuggling of human beings for profit or commercial purpose.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2319(E) — 3 cases
United States v. Arizona, 703 F. Supp. 2d 980 (D. Ariz. 2010).
“1070 2 A.R.S. § 13-2319: amending the crime of human smuggling Portion of Section 5 of S.”
Melendres v. Arpaio, 989 F. Supp. 2d 822 (D. Ariz. 2013).
“Prioritization of Immigration Enforcement and the ICE Memorandum In 2006, the MCSO created a specialized unit — the Human Smuggling Unit (“HSU”) — to enforce a 2005 human smuggling law, A.R.S. § 13-2319 (2007). (Doc. 530 at 4 ¶¶ 27-28.”
United States v. Arizona, 119 F. Supp. 3d 955 (D. Ariz. 2014).
“202) concerning A.R.S. § 13-2319. The Court heard oral argument oh the Motion on November 3, 2014.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2319(F) — 1 case
United States v. Arizona, 119 F. Supp. 3d 955 (D. Ariz. 2014).
“202) concerning A.R.S. § 13-2319. The Court heard oral argument oh the Motion on November 3, 2014.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2319(F)(1) — 1 case
Allen v. Sanders, 346 P.3d 30 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
“See generally A.R.S. § 13-2319(F)(1) (Supp. 2014) (smuggling; classification; definitions; " 'Family member’ means the person's parent, grandparent, sibling or any other person who is related to the person by consanguinity or affinity to the second degree.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2319(F)(3) — 3 cases
Melendres v. Arpaio, 989 F. Supp. 2d 822 (D. Ariz. 2013).
“Prioritization of Immigration Enforcement and the ICE Memorandum In 2006, the MCSO created a specialized unit — the Human Smuggling Unit (“HSU”) — to enforce a 2005 human smuggling law, A.R.S. § 13-2319 (2007). (Doc. 530 at 4 ¶¶ 27-28.”
We Are Am. v. Maricopa Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, 297 F.R.D. 373 (D. Ariz. 2013).
“More specifically, the plaintiffs request that the “[cjonvictions secured against persons for conspiring to transport themselves, and no one else, in purported violation of Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 13-2319 are inconsistent with the Supremacy Clause, U.”
United States v. Arizona, 119 F. Supp. 3d 955 (D. Ariz. 2014).
“202) concerning A.R.S. § 13-2319. The Court heard oral argument oh the Motion on November 3, 2014.”
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.