Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 13

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4304

Property subject to forfeiture; exemptions; innocent owner

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. Except as provided in subsections B, C and D of this section, all property, including all interests in such property, described in a statute providing for its forfeiture is subject to forfeiture if both of the following apply:

1. The owner is convicted of an offense to which forfeiture applies.

2. The state establishes by clear and convincing evidence that the property is subject to forfeiture as provided in subsection E of this section.

B. A vehicle used by any person as a common carrier in the transaction of business as a common carrier may not be forfeited under this chapter unless the state proves by clear and convincing evidence that the owner or other person in charge of the vehicle was a consenting party or privy to the act or omission giving rise to forfeiture or knew of it.

C. A vehicle may not be forfeited under this chapter following a conviction for any act or for an omission committed or omitted by a person other than the owner while the vehicle was unlawfully in the possession of a person other than the owner in violation of the criminal laws of this state or of the United States.

D. Property may not be forfeited pursuant to section 13-3413, subsection A, paragraph 1 or 3 if the conduct giving rise to the seizure both:

1. Did not involve an amount of unlawful substance greater than the statutory threshold amount as defined in section 13-3401.

2. Was not committed for financial gain.

E. After a person is convicted of an offense for which forfeiture applies, a court may order the person to forfeit any of the following:

1. Property the person acquired through the commission of the offense.

2. Property that is directly traceable to property acquired through the commission of the offense.

3. Any property or instrumentality that the person used in the commission of the offense or to facilitate the offense.

4. Substitute assets as prescribed in section 13-2314, subsection D, paragraph 6, subdivision (d) and in accordance with section 13-4305, subsection C.

F. The court may waive the conviction requirement if the prosecuting authority shows by clear and convincing evidence that there is no known owner of the seized property, diligent efforts have been made to identify the owner of the seized property and no person has asserted an ownership interest in the seized property or that, before conviction, the defendant or alleged criminal:

1. Died.

2. No longer resides in the United States or was deported.

3. Was granted immunity or reduced punishment in exchange for testifying or assisting a law enforcement investigation or prosecution.

4. Fled the jurisdiction of this state.

5. Abandoned the property.

G. This section does not prevent property from being forfeited by the terms of a plea agreement that is approved by a court or by other agreement of the parties in a criminal proceeding.

H. A person who claims to be an innocent owner has the burden of production to show that the person either:

1. Held a legal right, title or interest in the property seized at the time the illegal conduct that gave rise to the seizure of the property occurred.

2. Acquired as a bona fide purchaser for value a legal right, title or interest in the property subject to forfeiture after the commission of the crime that gave rise to the seizure of the property.

I. If a person establishes that the person is an innocent owner pursuant to subsection H of this section and the state pursues a forfeiture proceeding with respect to that person's property, other than property described in section 13-3413 to successfully forfeit the property, the state shall prove by clear and convincing evidence that the innocent owner had actual knowledge of the underlying crime that gave rise to the forfeiture.

J. If the state is unable to prove the person is not an innocent owner as provided in subsections H and I of this section, the court shall find that the person is an innocent owner and order the state to relinquish all claims of title to the property and return the property to the innocent owner.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1990–2024 · leading case: In Re One 1983 Toyota
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re One 1983 Toyota (1991) arizctapp · cites it 18× “Valentine claims that she is an "innocent owner" pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4304(3). That statute provides that an owner's or interest holder's interest may not be forfeited if the owner or interest holder establishes all of the following: (a) He acquired the interest before or…”
In re 1996 Nissan Sentra (2001) arizctapp · cites it 5× “§ 13-3413 (drug) because Simmons’s interest was exempt under A.R.S. § 13-4304. We need not consider this issue because we have already determined that Simmons forfeited her interest in the Nissan under A.”
In re One Residence Located at 4030 W. Avocado, Cortaro Ridge, Lot 32 (1995) arizctapp · cites it 9× “The exemptions from forfeiture are set forth in A.R.S. § 13-4304. The only one the claimant in this case attempted to establish is the “innocent owner” exemption contained in § 13-4304(4), which states: No owner’s or interest holder’s interest may be forfeited under this chapter…”
In Re a Parcel of Real Property Known as 1632 N. Santa Rita (1990) arizctapp · cites it 4× “Furthermore, the legislature has spoken on this issue by virtue of its failure to list a homestead as property that is exempt from forfeiture pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4304. A.R.S. § 33-1101(A) provides: Any person the age of eighteen or over, married or single, who resides within…”
In Re Property, Business, & Building Located at 2120 S. 4th Avenue, Lot 16, Block 8 of Resubdivision of Home Addition No (1994) arizctapp · cites it 8× “) There is no definition of who may be considered an “innocent” owner or interest holder.”
In re United States Currency in the Amount of $315,900.00 (1995) arizctapp · cites it 2× “Appellant filed a verified claim asserting ownership of the cash and contending that it was “the product of monies acquired and saved through various lawful means over a twenty-year period of time,” including gambling winnings legally obtained between 1973 and 1993 in various…”
In Re One Residence at 319 E. Fairgrounds Dr. (2003) arizctapp · cites it 4× “A trial court may grant summary judgment or, if there are contested facts, conduct a hearing to determine by a preponderance of the evidence whether the property is subject to forfeiture and whether the owner’s interest is within one of the exemptions.”
In re United States Currency in the Amount of $26,980.00 (1998) arizctapp · cites it 3× “§ 13-4307, Gilbert filed a claim of exemption from forfeiture pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4304. Gilbert claimed ownership of the money as a return on a capital investment in Timothy Walters’ construction business.”
In re 1986 Chevrolet Corvette (1994) ariz · cites it 2× “Is The Property Subject To Forfeiture? Under A.R.S. § 13-4304, property is subject to forfeiture if some other statute provides for such a remedy.”
Wohlstrom v. Buchanan (1994) ariz “Because no one was present to challenge the state’s case and petitioner had no chance to prove a forfeiture exemption under § 13-4304(3), this proceeding was essentially ex parte.”
Krimstock v. Kelly (2002) ca2 “Other state statutes contain express exceptions for a variety of innocent parties: Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 13-4304(l)-(2), (4)-(5) (common carriers; owners whose vehicles were "unlawfully in the possession of a person other than the owner” during commission or omission of an act;…”
State v. One Single Family Residence At 1810 East Second Avenue (1997) arizctapp “The state relied on the racketeering statute, 6 which provides for forfeiture if the property is “used or intended to be used in any manner or part to facilitate the commission of the offense.”
Show all 24 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4304(3) — 9 cases
In Re One 1983 Toyota (1991) arizctapp “Valentine claims that she is an "innocent owner" pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4304(3). That statute provides that an owner's or interest holder's interest may not be forfeited if the owner or interest holder establishes all of the following: (a) He acquired the interest before or…”
In re 1996 Nissan Sentra (2001) arizctapp “§ 13-3413 (drug) because Simmons’s interest was exempt under A.R.S. § 13-4304. We need not consider this issue because we have already determined that Simmons forfeited her interest in the Nissan under A.”
In Re Property, Business, & Building Located at 2120 S. 4th Avenue, Lot 16, Block 8 of Resubdivision of Home Addition No (1994) arizctapp “) There is no definition of who may be considered an “innocent” owner or interest holder.”
Wohlstrom v. Buchanan (1994) ariz “Because no one was present to challenge the state’s case and petitioner had no chance to prove a forfeiture exemption under § 13-4304(3), this proceeding was essentially ex parte.”
State ex rel. Corbin v. Valentine (1991) arizctapp
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4304(3)(a) — 2 cases
In Re One 1983 Toyota (1991) arizctapp “Valentine claims that she is an "innocent owner" pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4304(3). That statute provides that an owner's or interest holder's interest may not be forfeited if the owner or interest holder establishes all of the following: (a) He acquired the interest before or…”
State ex rel. Corbin v. Valentine (1991) arizctapp
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4304(3)(b) — 3 cases
In Re One 1983 Toyota (1991) arizctapp “Valentine claims that she is an "innocent owner" pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4304(3). That statute provides that an owner's or interest holder's interest may not be forfeited if the owner or interest holder establishes all of the following: (a) He acquired the interest before or…”
In Re Property, Business, & Building Located at 2120 S. 4th Avenue, Lot 16, Block 8 of Resubdivision of Home Addition No (1994) arizctapp “) There is no definition of who may be considered an “innocent” owner or interest holder.”
State ex rel. Corbin v. Valentine (1991) arizctapp
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4304(3)(c) — 2 cases
In Re One 1983 Toyota (1991) arizctapp “Valentine claims that she is an "innocent owner" pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4304(3). That statute provides that an owner's or interest holder's interest may not be forfeited if the owner or interest holder establishes all of the following: (a) He acquired the interest before or…”
State ex rel. Corbin v. Valentine (1991) arizctapp
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4304(4) — 3 cases
In re One Residence Located at 4030 W. Avocado, Cortaro Ridge, Lot 32 (1995) arizctapp “The exemptions from forfeiture are set forth in A.R.S. § 13-4304. The only one the claimant in this case attempted to establish is the “innocent owner” exemption contained in § 13-4304(4), which states: No owner’s or interest holder’s interest may be forfeited under this chapter…”
In Re One Residence at 319 E. Fairgrounds Dr. (2003) arizctapp “A trial court may grant summary judgment or, if there are contested facts, conduct a hearing to determine by a preponderance of the evidence whether the property is subject to forfeiture and whether the owner’s interest is within one of the exemptions.”
State v. Rivera (2016) arizctapp
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4304(A)(1) — 1 case
Imo: 485,890.00 U.S. Currency (2024) arizctapp
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4304(l) — 1 case
Krimstock v. Kelly (2002) ca2 “Other state statutes contain express exceptions for a variety of innocent parties: Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 13-4304(l)-(2), (4)-(5) (common carriers; owners whose vehicles were "unlawfully in the possession of a person other than the owner” during commission or omission of an act;…”
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.