Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 13

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4308

Commencement of proceedings

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

A. The attorney for the state shall determine whether it is probable that the property is subject to forfeiture and, if so, may cause the commencement of further judicial forfeiture proceedings for which a notice of pending forfeiture has been filed and made by filing a complaint if a claim has been filed. If, on inquiry and examination, the attorney for the state determines that the proceedings probably cannot be sustained or that justice does not require the institution of such proceedings, the attorney for the state shall notify the seizing agency and immediately authorize the release of the seizure for forfeiture on the property or on any specified interest in it.

B. The state may not proceed with further forfeiture proceedings before a criminal conviction for an offense to which forfeiture applies unless no timely claim has been filed or a conviction is waived pursuant to this chapter.

C. If the state fails to proceed with further forfeiture proceedings within sixty days following a person's conviction for an offense to which forfeiture applies and a claim has been filed, such property shall be released from its seizure for forfeiture to an owner or interest holder, pending further proceedings pursuant to this chapter, which shall be commenced within seven years after actual discovery of the last act giving rise to forfeiture.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1992–2024 · leading case: In Re $15,379 in U.S. Currency
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re $15,379 in U.S. Currency (2016) arizctapp · cites it 9× “¶ 18 Citing these shortcomings, Macias first suggests the attorney who initiated the forfeiture did not have a “subjective basis” for believing the action was sustainable.”
In re Approximately $50,000.00 in United States Currency (2000) arizctapp · cites it 7× “” In late December, Mada filed a motion “for Return of Seized Property,” claiming that the state had failed to timely pursue forfeiture proceedings after she had filed her claim for the currency and citing A.R.S. § 13-4308(B). The state responded that Mada could not unilaterally…”
State v. Gill (2000) arizctapp · cites it 8× “The request was in the nature of a request for release of property pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4308(B) which provides that an owner may request a release of property if forfeiture proceedings are not initiated within sixty days of seizure.”
State v. Western Union Financial Services, Inc. (2008) arizctapp · cites it 7× “Although the legislature did not define the term “commence a proceeding,” A.R.S. § 13-4308, entitled “Commencement of Proceedings,” describes the steps to take after property has been seized and the State’s attorney determines whether the property is subject to forfeiture and…”
State ex rel. Brnovich v. Culver (2016) arizctapp · cites it 2× “Because the State filed the NOSF and NOPF on the same day, it complied with the statutory requirements of A.R.S. § 13-4308(B), thus giving the court jurisdiction over the property seized.”
State v. One Single Family Residence At 1810 East Second Avenue (1997) arizctapp · cites it 2× “4 A.R.S. § 13-4308. The state’s attorney may proceed in three ways: (1) informal “uncontested” forfeiture, A.”
Matter of $10,098.00 in US Currency (1993) arizctapp · cites it 2× “Because A.R.S. § 13-4308(B) requires the filing of the forfeiture complaint by the later of sixty days after notice of pending forfeiture or, if uncontested forfeiture has been made available, within sixty days after a declaration of forfeiture, the filing of the complaint was…”
State v. Benally (2015) nmctapp “” Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-4301 (9) (1999) (emphasis added).”
In re 1986 Chevrolet Corvette (1992) arizctapp · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 13-4308. An owner or holder of an interest in the seized property may then contest forfeiture by filing a claim against the property for a hearing to adjudicate the validity of his or her claimed interest.”
In Re $15,379.00 in U.S. Currency (2016) arizctapp · cites it 8× “¶18 Citing these shortcomings, Macias first suggests the attorney who initiated the forfeiture did not have a “subjective 8 IN RE $15,379 U.”
State v. Byrd (2015) arizctapp · cites it 12× “On March 28, 2011, in accordance with A.R.S. § 13-4308(B), the State filed a “Notice of Pending Forfeiture and Notice of Seizure for Forfeiture,” which detailed the property subject to forfeiture.”
State v. Culver (2016) arizctapp · cites it 2× “Because the State filed the NOSF and NOPF on the same day, it complied with the statutory requirements of A.R.S. § 13-4308(B), thus giving the court jurisdiction over the property seized.”
Show all 15 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4308(A) — 3 cases
In Re $15,379 in U.S. Currency (2016) arizctapp “¶ 18 Citing these shortcomings, Macias first suggests the attorney who initiated the forfeiture did not have a “subjective basis” for believing the action was sustainable.”
State v. Western Union Financial Services, Inc. (2008) arizctapp “Although the legislature did not define the term “commence a proceeding,” A.R.S. § 13-4308, entitled “Commencement of Proceedings,” describes the steps to take after property has been seized and the State’s attorney determines whether the property is subject to forfeiture and…”
In Re $15,379.00 in U.S. Currency (2016) arizctapp “¶18 Citing these shortcomings, Macias first suggests the attorney who initiated the forfeiture did not have a “subjective 8 IN RE $15,379 U.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4308(B) — 11 cases
In re Approximately $50,000.00 in United States Currency (2000) arizctapp “” In late December, Mada filed a motion “for Return of Seized Property,” claiming that the state had failed to timely pursue forfeiture proceedings after she had filed her claim for the currency and citing A.R.S. § 13-4308(B). The state responded that Mada could not unilaterally…”
State v. Gill (2000) arizctapp “The request was in the nature of a request for release of property pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4308(B) which provides that an owner may request a release of property if forfeiture proceedings are not initiated within sixty days of seizure.”
In Re $15,379 in U.S. Currency (2016) arizctapp “¶ 18 Citing these shortcomings, Macias first suggests the attorney who initiated the forfeiture did not have a “subjective basis” for believing the action was sustainable.”
State ex rel. Brnovich v. Culver (2016) arizctapp “Because the State filed the NOSF and NOPF on the same day, it complied with the statutory requirements of A.R.S. § 13-4308(B), thus giving the court jurisdiction over the property seized.”
State v. Western Union Financial Services, Inc. (2008) arizctapp “Although the legislature did not define the term “commence a proceeding,” A.R.S. § 13-4308, entitled “Commencement of Proceedings,” describes the steps to take after property has been seized and the State’s attorney determines whether the property is subject to forfeiture and…”
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.