A. Any evidence that is seized pursuant to a search warrant shall not be suppressed as a result of a violation of this chapter except as required by the United States Constitution and the constitution of this state.
B. If a party in a criminal proceeding seeks to exclude evidence from the trier of fact because of the conduct of a peace officer in obtaining the evidence, the proponent of the evidence may urge that the peace officer's conduct was taken in a reasonable, good faith belief that the conduct was proper and that the evidence discovered should not be kept from the trier of fact if otherwise admissible.
C. The trial court shall not suppress evidence that is otherwise admissible in a criminal proceeding if the court determines that the evidence was seized by a peace officer as a result of a good faith mistake or technical violation.
D. This section does not limit the enforcement of any appropriate civil remedy or criminal penalty in actions pursuant to other provisions of law against any individual or government entity found to have conducted an unreasonable search or seizure.
E. This section does not apply to unlawful electronic eavesdropping or wiretapping.
F. For the purposes of this section:
1. "Good faith mistake" means a reasonable judgmental error concerning the existence of facts that if true would be sufficient to constitute probable cause.
2. "Technical violation" means a reasonable good faith reliance on:
(a) A statute that is subsequently ruled unconstitutional.
(b) A warrant that is later invalidated due to a good faith mistake.
(c) A controlling court precedent that is later overruled, unless the court overruling the precedent orders the new precedent to be applied retroactively.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
41
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1982–2024 · leading case:
State v. Evans, 866 P.2d 869 (Ariz. 1994).
State v. Evans, 866 P.2d 869 (Ariz. 1994).
· cites it 22× “Finally, the court concludes that the police cannot advance a "good faith" argument because the arrest was not a "reasonable judgmental error" as defined in A.R.S. § 13-3925. Section 13-3925 is wholly inapplicable to this case.”
State v. Brita, 761 P.2d 1025 (Ariz. 1988).
· cites it 14× “However, the court of appeals reversed the suppression order on grounds not raised or considered in the trial court, namely, A.R.S. § 13-3925, the “good faith exception” statute.”
State v. Peterson, 830 P.2d 854 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 20× “The good faith exception to the exclusionary rule is set forth in A.R.S. § 13-3925, and under the analysis contained in United States v.”
State v. Crowley, 41 P.3d 618 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 5× “It only referred to the issue briefly at the hearing on the motion, citing neither Arizona’s good faith statute, A.R.S. § 13-3925, nor the doctrine based on constitutional principles, particularly the Fourth Amendment, as articulated in United States v.”
State v. Hyde, 921 P.2d 655 (Ariz. 1996).
· cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 13-3925. Under that statute, neither our analysis nor the result reached would have changed.”
State v. Don Jacob Havatone, 389 P.3d 1251 (Ariz. 2017).
· cites it 2× “3d 627, 637 (2016) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also A.R.S. § 13-3925 (codifying good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule).”
State of Arizona v. Courtney Noelle Weakland, 434 P.3d 578 (Ariz. 2019).
· cites it 4× “at 238 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted); see also A.R.S. § 13-3925 (codifying good- faith exception to the exclusionary rule).”
State v. Evans, 836 P.2d 1024 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 16× “See A.R.S. § 13-3925 (1989). In pertinent part, section 13-3925 provides as follows: A.”
Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1 (1995).
· cites it 2× “§ 1257 because the Arizona Supreme Court never passed upon the *7 Fourth Amendment issue and instead based its decision on the Arizona good-faith statute, Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-3925 (1993), an adequate and independent state ground.”
State v. Coats, 797 P.2d 693 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 8× “A.R.S. § 13-3925. The defendant claims the statute is invalid because it impinges on the rule-making authority of the Arizona Supreme Court and violates the principles of separation of powers embodied in the Arizona Constitution.”
State v. Greene, 784 P.2d 257 (Ariz. 1989).
· cites it 6× “The court of appeals, by memorandum decision, affirmed the suppression order but remanded the case to the trial court to consider whether Valinski’s alleged violation was in good faith under A.R.S. § 13-3925. ISSUE AND JURISDICTION Defendant petitioned this court for review on…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3925(A) — 8 cases
State v. Evans, 866 P.2d 869 (Ariz. 1994).
“Finally, the court concludes that the police cannot advance a "good faith" argument because the arrest was not a "reasonable judgmental error" as defined in A.R.S. § 13-3925. Section 13-3925 is wholly inapplicable to this case.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3925(B) — 4 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3925(C) — 5 cases
State v. Peterson, 830 P.2d 854 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991).
“The good faith exception to the exclusionary rule is set forth in A.R.S. § 13-3925, and under the analysis contained in United States v.”
State v. Coats, 797 P.2d 693 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).
“A.R.S. § 13-3925. The defendant claims the statute is invalid because it impinges on the rule-making authority of the Arizona Supreme Court and violates the principles of separation of powers embodied in the Arizona Constitution.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3925(C)(1) — 4 cases
State v. Evans, 866 P.2d 869 (Ariz. 1994).
“Finally, the court concludes that the police cannot advance a "good faith" argument because the arrest was not a "reasonable judgmental error" as defined in A.R.S. § 13-3925. Section 13-3925 is wholly inapplicable to this case.”
State v. Coats, 797 P.2d 693 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).
“A.R.S. § 13-3925. The defendant claims the statute is invalid because it impinges on the rule-making authority of the Arizona Supreme Court and violates the principles of separation of powers embodied in the Arizona Constitution.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3925(C)(2) — 1 case
State v. Evans, 866 P.2d 869 (Ariz. 1994).
“Finally, the court concludes that the police cannot advance a "good faith" argument because the arrest was not a "reasonable judgmental error" as defined in A.R.S. § 13-3925. Section 13-3925 is wholly inapplicable to this case.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3925(F)(2)(c) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3925(c) — 1 case
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.