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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3412 (2026)

Exceptions and exemptions; burden of proof; privileged communications

✓ 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

13-3412. Exceptions and exemptions; burden of proof; privileged communications

A. The provisions of sections 13-3402 and 13-3403, section 13-3404.01, subsection A, paragraph 1 and sections 13-3405 through 13-3409 do not apply to:

1. Manufacturers, wholesalers, pharmacies and pharmacists under the provisions of sections 32-1921 and 32-1961.

2. Medical practitioners, pharmacies and pharmacists while acting in the course of their professional practice, in good faith and in accordance with generally accepted medical standards.

3. Persons who lawfully acquire and use such drugs only for scientific purposes.

4. Officers and employees of the United States, this state or a political subdivision of the United States or this state, while acting in the course of their official duties.

5. An employee or agent of a person described in paragraphs 1 through 4 of this subsection, and a registered nurse or medical technician under the supervision of a medical practitioner, while such employee, agent, nurse or technician is acting in the course of professional practice or employment, and not on his own account.

6. A common or contract carrier or warehouseman, or an employee of such carrier or warehouseman, whose possession of drugs is in the usual course of business or employment.

7. Persons lawfully in possession or control of controlled substances authorized by title 36, chapter 27 or the rules adopted pursuant to title 36, chapter 27.

8. The receipt, possession or use of a controlled substance included in schedule I of section 36-2512 or the rules adopted pursuant to section 36-2512, by any seriously ill or terminally ill patient, pursuant to the prescription of a doctor in compliance with section 13-3412.01.

B. Section 13-3407 does not apply to licensed veterinarians who lawfully acquire, use, prescribe, dispense or administer any dangerous drug while acting in the course of their professional practice, in good faith and in accordance with generally accepted medical standards.

C. In any complaint, information or indictment and in any action or proceeding brought for the enforcement of any provision of this chapter the burden of proof of any such exception, excuse, defense or exemption is on the defendant.

D. In addition to other exceptions to the physician-patient privilege, information communicated to a physician in an effort to procure unlawfully a prescription-only, dangerous or narcotic drug, or to procure unlawfully the administration of such drug, is not a privileged communication.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1992–1996 · leading case: State v. Cramer, 851 P.2d 147 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Cramer, 851 P.2d 147 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 4× “We agree that the Legislature has addressed exceptions and exemptions in detail by statute, A.R.S. § 13-3412, and conclude that unlawful possession of marijuana does not fall within those protected categories.”
State v. Armstrong, 862 P.2d 230 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. §§ 13-3412(A)(7); 36-2525(D), (F).”
State v. Rocha-Rocha, 935 P.2d 870 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “Now, A.R.S. § 13-3412(A)(4) permits state officers, employees, and their agents to possess such drugs while acting in the course, of their official duties, thereby nullifying the statutory per se rule *297 articulated in Boccelli and followed in McKinney .”
State v. Olea, 897 P.2d 1371 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “section 13-3412(A)(7). We conclude that our legislature proscribed illicit drug use with sufficient clarity.”
State v. Tubbs, 840 P.2d 303 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 8× “” A.R.S. § 13-3412. His purpose in the transaction was not to assist a police investigation but rather to get cash or a pinch of the drug.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3412(A)(4): 2 cases
State v. Rocha-Rocha, 935 P.2d 870 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996). “Now, A.R.S. § 13-3412(A)(4) permits state officers, employees, and their agents to possess such drugs while acting in the course, of their official duties, thereby nullifying the statutory per se rule *297 articulated in Boccelli and followed in McKinney .”
State v. Tubbs, 840 P.2d 303 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). “” A.R.S. § 13-3412. His purpose in the transaction was not to assist a police investigation but rather to get cash or a pinch of the drug.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3412(A)(7): 2 cases
State v. Armstrong, 862 P.2d 230 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993). “See A.R.S. §§ 13-3412(A)(7); 36-2525(D), (F).”
State v. Olea, 897 P.2d 1371 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995). “section 13-3412(A)(7). We conclude that our legislature proscribed illicit drug use with sufficient clarity.”
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.