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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4305 (2026)

Seizure of property

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

A. Property subject to forfeiture under this chapter may be seized for forfeiture by a peace officer:

1. On process issued pursuant to the Arizona rules of civil procedure or this title, including a seizure warrant.

2. By making a seizure for forfeiture on property seized on process issued pursuant to law, including sections 13-3911, 13-3912, 13-3913, 13-3914 and 13-3915.

3. By making a seizure for forfeiture without court process if the officer has probable cause to believe that the property is subject to forfeiture and any of the following is true:

(a) The seizure for forfeiture is of property seized incident to a lawful arrest for a crime or a lawful search.

(b) The property subject to seizure for forfeiture has been the subject of a prior judgment in favor of this state or any other state or the federal government in a forfeiture proceeding.

(c) The peace officer has probable cause to believe that the property is subject to forfeiture and that the delay occasioned by the need to obtain a court order would result in the removal or destruction of the property or otherwise frustrate the seizure.

B. The court shall determine probable cause for seizure before real property may be seized for forfeiture. The court may make its determination ex parte if the state demonstrates that notice and an opportunity to appear would create a risk of harm to the public safety or welfare, including the risk of physical injury or the likelihood of property damage or financial loss.

C. The court shall determine probable cause for seizure before property may be seized for forfeiture as a substitute asset pursuant to section 13-2314, subsection D or E, or pursuant to section 13-4313, subsection A. The court may issue a seizure warrant for such property if it determines that there is probable cause to believe that the property is subject to forfeiture and is not available for seizure for forfeiture for any reason described in section 13-4313, subsection A. The determinations shall be made ex parte unless real property is to be seized and subsection B of this section requires notice and an opportunity to appear.

D. In establishing probable cause for seizure, a rebuttable presumption exists that the property of any person is subject to forfeiture if the state establishes all of the following by clear and convincing evidence:

1. Conduct giving rise to forfeiture occurred.

2. The person acquired the property during the period of the conduct giving rise to forfeiture or within a reasonable time after that period.

3. There is no likely source for the property other than the conduct giving rise to forfeiture.

E. The presence or possession of United States currency, debit cards or credit cards, without other indicia of a crime that subjects property to forfeiture, is insufficient probable cause for seizure of United States currency, debit cards or credit cards.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1987–2021 · leading case: In re United States Currency in the Amount of $315,900.00, 902 P.2d 351 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re United States Currency in the Amount of $315,900.00, 902 P.2d 351 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 22× “Accordingly, there is no need to address or resolve the other significant issues appellant raises, including the constitutional challenges on double jeopardy and excessive fines grounds. The trial court’s forfeiture order is reversed, and the case is remanded with directions to…”
State v. One Single Fam. Residence At 1810 East Second Avenue, 969 P.2d 166 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 6× “A.R.S. § 13-4305. Procedure in forfeiture actions is governed by A.”
In Re Twenty-Four ThouSand Dollars ($24,000) in United States Currency, 171 P.3d 1240 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 3× “They also found a bag containing four ounces of marijuana in the space between the front seats. 183 Ariz.”
In re United States Currency in the Amount of $26,980.00, 973 P.2d 1184 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 4× “Rather, A.R.S. § 13-4305(A)(3)(c), which the trial court cited, provides: “Property subject to forfeiture under this chapter may be seized for forfeiture by a peace officer .”
Matter of $10,098.00 in US Currency, 854 P.2d 1223 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 5× “00 found in Dimitriou’s pocket may not have been intended for use in actually purchasing the marijuana from Prendergast, an inference is raised by A.R.S. § 13-4305(B) that the money was intended to be used by Dimi-triou to facilitate his possession and sale of the marijuana.”
Ferreira v. Superior Court, 938 P.2d 53 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 4× “Ferreira argues that she did not voluntarily decline to claim the $44,000.”
In re United States Currency In Amount of $26,980.00, 18 P.3d 85 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000). “Application of the inference in § 13-4305(F) is not supported by the evidence and, therefore, the inference does not apply here.”
State v. Rojers, 169 P.3d 651 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). “With respect to the County Attorney’s reference to ARS 13-4305 and 13-4306— prior to the illegal search there was absolutely no evidence that the car contained any narcotics or any evidence of any sort of criminal activity that would permit the seizure and inventory of the…”
State v. W. Union Fin. Servs., Inc., 199 P.3d 592 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 13-4305(A)(1) & (2) (2001). Our courts have consistently held that anticipatory search warrants are permissible under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
State v. Nineteen Thousand Two Hundred & Thirty-Eight Dollars ($19,238.00) in United States Currency, 755 P.2d 1166 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “§ 13-4311(G) and (H)); or (iii) where the state files a verified complaint based upon admissible evidence that a predicate offense exists and the owner or interest holder in the property fails to file a claim and request for hearing within thirty days after the notice of pending…”
State Ex Rel. Horne v. Rivas, 250 P.3d 1196 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). “Constructive seizure may be made by posting notice of seizure for forfeiture on the property or by filing notice of seizure for forfeiture or notice of pending forfeiture in any appropriate public record relating to the property.”
State v. Gill, 11 P.3d 1043 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000). ““Seizure for forfeiture” is defined as the seizure of property by *506 a peace officer coupled with an assertion by the seizing agency or an attorney for the state that the property is subject to forfeiture.”
Show all 17 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4305(A) — 1 case
State v. Gill, 11 P.3d 1043 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000). ““Seizure for forfeiture” is defined as the seizure of property by *506 a peace officer coupled with an assertion by the seizing agency or an attorney for the state that the property is subject to forfeiture.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4305(A)(1) — 2 cases
State v. W. Union Fin. Servs., Inc., 199 P.3d 592 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). “A.R.S. § 13-4305(A)(1) & (2) (2001). Our courts have consistently held that anticipatory search warrants are permissible under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
Torres v. Goddard, 194 F. Supp. 3d 886 (D. Ariz. 2016).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4305(A)(3)(a) — 1 case
Cross v. Off. of the Attorney Gen., 795 P.2d 1297 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4305(A)(3)(c) — 1 case
In re United States Currency in the Amount of $26,980.00, 973 P.2d 1184 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998). “Rather, A.R.S. § 13-4305(A)(3)(c), which the trial court cited, provides: “Property subject to forfeiture under this chapter may be seized for forfeiture by a peace officer .”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4305(B) — 7 cases
In re United States Currency in the Amount of $315,900.00, 902 P.2d 351 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995). “Accordingly, there is no need to address or resolve the other significant issues appellant raises, including the constitutional challenges on double jeopardy and excessive fines grounds. The trial court’s forfeiture order is reversed, and the case is remanded with directions to…”
Matter of $10,098.00 in US Currency, 854 P.2d 1223 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993). “00 found in Dimitriou’s pocket may not have been intended for use in actually purchasing the marijuana from Prendergast, an inference is raised by A.R.S. § 13-4305(B) that the money was intended to be used by Dimi-triou to facilitate his possession and sale of the marijuana.”
In Re Twenty-Four ThouSand Dollars ($24,000) in United States Currency, 171 P.3d 1240 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). “They also found a bag containing four ounces of marijuana in the space between the front seats. 183 Ariz.”
Ferreira v. Superior Court, 938 P.2d 53 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996). “Ferreira argues that she did not voluntarily decline to claim the $44,000.”
State v. One Single Fam. Residence At 1810 East Second Avenue, 969 P.2d 166 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997). “A.R.S. § 13-4305. Procedure in forfeiture actions is governed by A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4305(E) — 2 cases
State v. Miller (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
State v. Miller, 429 P.3d 556 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4305(F) — 4 cases
In re United States Currency In Amount of $26,980.00, 18 P.3d 85 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000). “Application of the inference in § 13-4305(F) is not supported by the evidence and, therefore, the inference does not apply here.”
In Re Twenty-Four ThouSand Dollars ($24,000) in United States Currency, 171 P.3d 1240 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). “They also found a bag containing four ounces of marijuana in the space between the front seats. 183 Ariz.”
In re United States Currency in the Amount of $26,980.00, 973 P.2d 1184 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998). “Rather, A.R.S. § 13-4305(A)(3)(c), which the trial court cited, provides: “Property subject to forfeiture under this chapter may be seized for forfeiture by a peace officer .”
Way v. State (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).
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.