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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3725 (2026)

Interference with monitoring devices; classification

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

A. A person commits interference with monitoring devices by either:

1. Being required to be on electronic monitoring or global position system monitoring and removing or bypassing any device or equipment that is necessary for the electronic monitoring or global position system monitoring.

2. Assisting any person who is required to be on electronic monitoring or global position system monitoring in removing or bypassing any device or equipment that is necessary for the electronic monitoring or global position system monitoring.

B. A violation of this section is a class 4 felony.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2013–2022 · leading case: State v. Kendrick, 306 P.3d 85 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Kendrick, 306 P.3d 85 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “2 ¶ 3 In July 2010, a probation officer petitioned to revoke Kendrick’s probation, alleging he had violated his probation by, inter alia, interfering with the electronic monitoring device in violation of A.R.S. § 13-3725 (2010), absconding, and failing to comply with GPS…”
State v. Rocco (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 3× “Any interference with the monitoring device is punishable as a class 4 felony pursuant to ARS 13-3725. ¶5 On May 4, 2007, the superior court sentenced Rocco to a mitigated term of eight years’ imprisonment followed by two concurrent terms of lifetime probation upon his release.”
State v. Campos (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 3× “and probationer status despite the State’s agreement not to enhance his sentence based on those facts; (3) the court infringed on his due process rights by considering his criminal history in imposing sentence; (4) the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the 2019…”
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.