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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3911 (2026)

Definition

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

A search warrant is an order in writing issued in the name of the state of Arizona, signed by a magistrate, directed to a peace officer, commanding him to search for personal property, persons or items described in section 13-3912.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1982–2021 · leading case: Glenn H/sonia H v. Hon hoskins/banner, 419 P.3d 567 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Glenn H/sonia H v. Hon hoskins/banner, 419 P.3d 567 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “See generally A.R.S. § 13-3911 to -3925 (regulating the procurement, execution, and return of search warrants); Ariz.”
State v. Heylmun, 708 P.2d 778 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 4× “” A search warrant is defined in A.R.S. § 13-3911 as “an order in writing issued in the name of the state of Arizona, signed by a magistrate, directed to a peace officer, commanding him to search for personal property, persons or items described in § 13-3912.”
State v. DeBoucher, 660 P.2d 471 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 2× “On review, we must determine *227 whether the statutory procedures of A.R.S. §§ 13-3911 et seq. have been followed, and whether the issuing court had sufficient grounds upon which to base its decision.”
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Superior Court, 882 P.2d 1285 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993). “” In this context, the ordinary meaning of “as” is “in or to the same degree in which” or “in the way or manner that.”
Linch v. Thomas-Davis Med. Centers, P.C., 925 P.2d 686 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 13-3911. This is true, despite the privileged nature of the property to be seized.”
Linch v. Thomas-davis Med. Centers Pc, 925 P.2d 686 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 13-3911. This is true, despite the privileged nature of the property to be seized.”
Pavestone LLC v. Hon. warner/troupe (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “41 because it is a “tangible object”); see also A.R.S. §§ 13-3911 (providing that search warrant may issue 1 Relatedly, blood testing is not specifically prohibited in the context of physical and mental examinations under the civil rules.”
State v. Soliven (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. §§ 13-3911–3925; see also Nordelli v.”
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.