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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3417 (2026)

Use of wire communication or electronic communication in drug related transactions; classification

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

A. It is unlawful for a person to use any wire communication or electronic communication as defined in section  13-3001 to facilitate the violation of any felony provision or to conspire to commit any felony provision of this chapter or chapter 23 of this title.

B. Any offense committed by use of a wire communication or electronic communication as set forth in this section is deemed to have been committed at the place where the transmission or transmissions originated or at the place where the transmission or transmissions were received.

C. A person who violates this section is guilty of a class 4 felony except if the felony facilitated carries a class 5 or 6 designation in which case a violation of this section shall carry the same classification as the felony facilitated.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1995–2018 · leading case: State of Arizona v. Usef Latrice Simmons II, 363 P.3d 120 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State of Arizona v. Usef Latrice Simmons II, 363 P.3d 120 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 31× “” The state responds that Simmons “violated § 13-3417 ... by using his cell phone to communicate with the officer on February 11 and 12” regarding the *506 sale of a dangerous drug and that whatever happened after their communications is of no consequence.”
Jose Murillo-Prado v. Eric Holder, Jr., 735 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 2013). “Use of a Wire Communication in the Commission of a Drug Related Felony, in violation of A.R.S. § 13-3417; d. Money Laundering, in violation of A.”
State v. Pecina, 908 P.2d 52 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995). “The defendant was indicted on two counts of selling dangerous drugs under Ariz.Rev. StatAnn. (“A.R.S.”) section 13-3407(A)(7), one count of possession of marijuana under section 13-3405(A)(1), and twelve counts of using wire communications to sell dangerous drugs under section…”
State v. Stevens (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 4× “§ 843 (b), an analogous statute to A.R.S. § 13-3417, and noting that “[w]here a transaction like a sale necessarily presupposes two parties with specific roles, it would be odd to speak of one party as facilitating the conduct of the other”).”
State v. Suazo (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “Count 7 - Use of Wire or Electronic Communication in Drug-Related Transactions ¶13 Pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-3417, “[i]t is unlawful for a person” to use any wire or electronic communication to facilitate a conspiracy to sell or transport illegal drugs.”
State v. Smith (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “These facts are also sufficient to prove that Smith used an electronic communication device in relation to a drug transaction in violation of A.R.S. § 13-3417(A) (2010). II. Smith’s Statements Introduced at Trial ¶13 Officer JT testified at trial that when asked, Smith admitted…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3417(A) — 3 cases
State of Arizona v. Usef Latrice Simmons II, 363 P.3d 120 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). “” The state responds that Simmons “violated § 13-3417 ... by using his cell phone to communicate with the officer on February 11 and 12” regarding the *506 sale of a dangerous drug and that whatever happened after their communications is of no consequence.”
State v. Smith (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). “These facts are also sufficient to prove that Smith used an electronic communication device in relation to a drug transaction in violation of A.R.S. § 13-3417(A) (2010). II. Smith’s Statements Introduced at Trial ¶13 Officer JT testified at trial that when asked, Smith admitted…”
State v. Stevens (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). “§ 843 (b), an analogous statute to A.R.S. § 13-3417, and noting that “[w]here a transaction like a sale necessarily presupposes two parties with specific roles, it would be odd to speak of one party as facilitating the conduct of the other”).”
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.