A. If an owner of seized property controverts the grounds on which the warrant was issued, the magistrate shall proceed to take testimony relative thereto unless a proceeding pursuant to chapter 39 of this title is or has been initiated relating to the same property interest. The testimony given by each witness shall be reduced to writing and certified by the magistrate. If it appears that the property taken is not the same as that described in the warrant and is not within section 13-3916, subsection C, D or E or section 13-3925, subsection C, or that probable cause does not exist for believing the items are subject to seizure, the magistrate shall cause the property to be restored to the person from whom it was taken if the property is not such that any interest in it is subject to forfeiture or its possession would constitute a criminal offense.
B. Any order under this section as to a property interest is subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of that person in all actions pursuant to this title. Other orders are appealable, if permitted by the Arizona rules of civil procedure.
C. No stay may issue on the forfeiture of seized property or its use in an action pursuant to this title while contravention of the warrant is being litigated.
Notes of Decisions
State Ex Rel. Milstead v. Melvin, 682 P.2d 407 (Ariz. 1984).
· cites it 82× “Appellees filed in justice court a motion to controvert search warrants and for return of property pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-3922. Justice of the Peace John Melvin held that the warrants were not supported by probable cause and ordered DPS to return the seized items.”
Mehrens v. State, 675 P.2d 718 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 20× “This appeal is from the denial of a petition under the contravention statute, A.R.S. § 13-3922, for the return of property seized pursuant to a search warrant.”
Greehling v. State, 662 P.2d 1005 (Ariz. 1982).
· cites it 16× “The petitioners’ motion for return of property, filed pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-3922, was denied by the Maricopa County Superior Court.”
Greehling v. State, 662 P.2d 1028 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982).
· cites it 17× “The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether this court has jurisdiction to hear a direct appeal from an order denying relief under A.R.S. § 13-3922. The appellants filed a pleading labeled a “Motion For Return of Property” with the Maricopa County Superior Court on October…”
Search Warrants C-419847 & C-419848 v. State, 665 P.2d 57 (Ariz. 1983).
· cites it 8× “In our previous opinion we ruled that a motion pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-3922 for the return of property seized under a search warrant is a civil proceeding governed by the law of civil appeals.”
State v. Salerno, 162 P.3d 661 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 10× “Although the supreme court was answering the narrow question of whether an adverse ruling in a proceeding brought under A.R.S. § 13-3922 3 could be reviewed by direct appeal, the analysis is equally applicable to a general motion for return of property.”
Wallace v. Shields, 854 P.2d 1152 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 3× “section 13-3922 provides the putative owner of property seized under a search warrant with an opportunity to contest the warrant before the magistrate who issued it.”
In re Approximately $50,000.00 in United States Currency, 2 P.3d 1271 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 3× “It also argues she could have requested that court to order the currency’s return pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 13-3922 or 13-4429. We agree the court had jurisdiction to consider such claims.”
Samaritan Health Servs. v. City of Glendale, 714 P.2d 887 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 2× “Appellees urge that the hearing provided by A.R.S. § 13-3922 for controverting the grounds for the issuance of a search warrant gives ample opportunity to Samaritan to assert and litigate the privilege issue.”
Lay v. Nelson In & For Cnty. Of Yuma, 436 P.3d 496 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 2× “2d at 409-10 ; see A.R.S. § 13-3922 (2019) ("magistrate" may rule on motions to controvert warrant).”
In Re $15,379 in U.S. Currency, 388 P.3d 856 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “, or A.R.S. § 13-3922, though those provisions are not implicated here.”
Pinal Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors v. Georgini & T.J., 334 P.3d 761 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “2d 1005,1007 (1982) (motion for return of property pursuant to AR.S. § 13-3922 “is civil in nature,” notwithstanding placement in criminal code, “and an appeal from an adverse ruling would be governed by the law of civil appeals”).”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3922(A) — 5 cases
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.