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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4311 (2026)

Judicial in rem forfeiture proceedings

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

A. If a forfeiture is authorized by law, it may be ordered by a court on an action in rem brought by the state pursuant to a notice of pending forfeiture or a verified complaint for forfeiture. The state may serve the complaint in the manner provided by section 13-4307 or by the Arizona rules of civil procedure.

B. Judicial in rem forfeiture proceedings are in the nature of an action in rem and are governed by the Arizona rules of civil procedure unless a different procedure is provided by law.  A civil in rem action may be brought by the state in addition to or in lieu of the civil and criminal in personam forfeiture procedures set forth in sections 13-4312 and 13-4313 if the prosecutor 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 or after the 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.

C. On the filing of a civil in rem action by the state in superior court the clerk of the court in which the action is filed or the attorney for the state shall provide the notice of pending forfeiture required by section 13-4307 unless the files of the clerk of the court reflect that the notice has previously been made.

D. An owner of or interest holder in the property may file a claim against the property pursuant to section 13-4307, within sixty days after the notice, for a hearing to adjudicate the validity of the owner's or interest holder's claimed interest in the property. The court shall hold the hearing without a jury.  An owner or interest holder may not be charged a filing fee or any other charge for filing the claim.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 53 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1987–2022 · leading case: State v. Jackson, 113 P.3d 112 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Jackson, 113 P.3d 112 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 36× “§ 13-4309(6)(a), but he was obliged to follow other procedures outlined in A.R.S. § 13-4311. Subsection (G) of section 4311 provides, in relevant part: Within twenty days after service of the complaint, the claimant shall file and serve the answer to the complaint____The answer…”
State ex rel. Brnovich v. Culver, 375 P.3d 83 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 19× “Here, the State complied with the requirements of A.R.S. §§ 13-4311, -4308 (2010), -4307 (2010), and -4306 (2010).”
State Ex Rel. Goddard v. Ochoa, 228 P.3d 950 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 31× “¶ 6 The trial court held a hearing on March 2, 2009.”
State, Ex Rel. Horne v. Campos, 250 P.3d 201 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 19× “¶ 11 The State then applied for an order of forfeiture in rem of the Noe Property, asserting neither Campos, nor anyone else, had filed a timely claim to it pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4311. As an alternative ground for forfeiture, it also moved for partial summary judgment based on…”
State ex rel. Horne v. Anthony, 303 P.3d 59 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 38× “The complaint named both the Racketeering Defendants and the Appellants as parties “in that they have timely filed claims pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4311.” ¶ 4 The complaint seeks in rem racketeering forfeiture under A.”
State v. Five Thousand Five Hundred & 00/100 Dollars ($5,500.00) in U.S. Currency, 817 P.2d 960 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 26× “section 13-4311. We answer in the affirmative and affirm the judgment of the trial court.”
State v. Counterman, 992 P.2d 1 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 17× “In denying the Countermans’ motion, the trial court stated: A.R.S. § 13-4311(A) indicates that the state may obtain service "in the manner provided by § 13-4307 or by the rules of civil procedure.”
Wohlstrom v. Buchanan, 884 P.2d 687 (Ariz. 1994). · cites it 11× “2d at 37 (similar facts sufficient to meet substantive concerns of § 13-4311). Support for our conclusion that this showing was sufficient can be found in comparable cases where standing has been allowed under the federal narcotics forfeiture statute, 21 U.”
State v. One Single Fam. Residence At 1810 East Second Avenue, 969 P.2d 166 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 13× “…"probable cause.” Under the revised version of the statute, the state’s burden is "preponderance of the evidence.” A.R.S. § 13-4311 (Supp.1996).”
In re United States Currency In Amount of $26,980.00, 18 P.3d 85 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 6× “” It does not support an award of prejudgment interest from the date of the seizure. Gilbert also claims that Pima County brought “[a] portion of this matter” under A.”
Matter of $10,098.00 in US Currency, 854 P.2d 1223 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 16× “In its complaint, the City requested that the court set a hearing within sixty days of the filing of the complaint pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4311. At the same time the City served the complaint, it also served Dimitriou with nonuniform interrogatories.”
In Re One 1983 Toyota, 814 P.2d 356 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 10× “Valentine filed a complaint and request for an order to show cause pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4311, claiming that she is the exclusive owner of the vehicle and that she acquired the vehicle prior to the occurrence of the conduct giving rise to forfeiture.”
Show all 53 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4311(1) — 3 cases
Matter of $10,098.00 in US Currency, 854 P.2d 1223 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993). “In its complaint, the City requested that the court set a hearing within sixty days of the filing of the complaint pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4311. At the same time the City served the complaint, it also served Dimitriou with nonuniform interrogatories.”
State ex rel. Horne v. Anthony, 303 P.3d 59 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013). “The complaint named both the Racketeering Defendants and the Appellants as parties “in that they have timely filed claims pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4311.” ¶ 4 The complaint seeks in rem racketeering forfeiture under A.”
Cross v. Off. of the Attorney Gen., 795 P.2d 1297 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4311(A) — 10 cases
In Re Twenty-Four ThouSand Dollars ($24,000) in United States Currency, 171 P.3d 1240 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
State v. Five Thousand Five Hundred & 00/100 Dollars ($5,500.00) in U.S. Currency, 817 P.2d 960 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991). “section 13-4311. We answer in the affirmative and affirm the judgment of the trial court.”
State v. Counterman, 992 P.2d 1 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999). “In denying the Countermans’ motion, the trial court stated: A.R.S. § 13-4311(A) indicates that the state may obtain service "in the manner provided by § 13-4307 or by the rules of civil procedure.”
State Ex Rel. Brnovich v. Cisneros-Ruiz, 381 P.3d 244 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
State v. Nineteen Thousand Two Hundred & Thirty-Eight Dollars ($19,238.00) in United States Currency, 755 P.2d 1166 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4311(B) — 9 cases
State v. Jackson, 113 P.3d 112 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005). “§ 13-4309(6)(a), but he was obliged to follow other procedures outlined in A.R.S. § 13-4311. Subsection (G) of section 4311 provides, in relevant part: Within twenty days after service of the complaint, the claimant shall file and serve the answer to the complaint____The answer…”
State v. Counterman, 992 P.2d 1 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999). “In denying the Countermans’ motion, the trial court stated: A.R.S. § 13-4311(A) indicates that the state may obtain service "in the manner provided by § 13-4307 or by the rules of civil procedure.”
State Ex Rel. Goddard v. Ochoa, 228 P.3d 950 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). “¶ 6 The trial court held a hearing on March 2, 2009.”
State v. One Single Fam. Residence At 1810 East Second Avenue, 969 P.2d 166 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997). “…"probable cause.” Under the revised version of the statute, the state’s burden is "preponderance of the evidence.” A.R.S. § 13-4311 (Supp.1996).”
State ex rel. Horne v. Anthony, 303 P.3d 59 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013). “The complaint named both the Racketeering Defendants and the Appellants as parties “in that they have timely filed claims pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4311.” ¶ 4 The complaint seeks in rem racketeering forfeiture under A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4311(C) — 4 cases
State v. One Single Fam. Residence At 1810 East Second Avenue, 969 P.2d 166 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997). “…"probable cause.” Under the revised version of the statute, the state’s burden is "preponderance of the evidence.” A.R.S. § 13-4311 (Supp.1996).”
State v. Five Thousand Five Hundred & 00/100 Dollars ($5,500.00) in U.S. Currency, 817 P.2d 960 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991). “section 13-4311. We answer in the affirmative and affirm the judgment of the trial court.”
State Ex Rel. Neely v. Brown, 864 P.2d 1038 (Ariz. 1993).
Cross v. Off. of the Attorney Gen., 795 P.2d 1297 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4311(D) — 24 cases
State, Ex Rel. Horne v. Campos, 250 P.3d 201 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). “¶ 11 The State then applied for an order of forfeiture in rem of the Noe Property, asserting neither Campos, nor anyone else, had filed a timely claim to it pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4311. As an alternative ground for forfeiture, it also moved for partial summary judgment based on…”
State ex rel. Brnovich v. Culver, 375 P.3d 83 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). “Here, the State complied with the requirements of A.R.S. §§ 13-4311, -4308 (2010), -4307 (2010), and -4306 (2010).”
State Ex Rel. Goddard v. Ochoa, 228 P.3d 950 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). “¶ 6 The trial court held a hearing on March 2, 2009.”
State v. Counterman, 992 P.2d 1 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999). “In denying the Countermans’ motion, the trial court stated: A.R.S. § 13-4311(A) indicates that the state may obtain service "in the manner provided by § 13-4307 or by the rules of civil procedure.”
State v. Jackson, 113 P.3d 112 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005). “§ 13-4309(6)(a), but he was obliged to follow other procedures outlined in A.R.S. § 13-4311. Subsection (G) of section 4311 provides, in relevant part: Within twenty days after service of the complaint, the claimant shall file and serve the answer to the complaint____The answer…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4311(E) — 18 cases
State ex rel. Brnovich v. Culver, 375 P.3d 83 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). “Here, the State complied with the requirements of A.R.S. §§ 13-4311, -4308 (2010), -4307 (2010), and -4306 (2010).”
State Ex Rel. Goddard v. Ochoa, 228 P.3d 950 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). “¶ 6 The trial court held a hearing on March 2, 2009.”
Wohlstrom v. Buchanan, 884 P.2d 687 (Ariz. 1994). “2d at 37 (similar facts sufficient to meet substantive concerns of § 13-4311). Support for our conclusion that this showing was sufficient can be found in comparable cases where standing has been allowed under the federal narcotics forfeiture statute, 21 U.”
State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Superior Court, 843 P.2d 1277 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992).
Norriega v. MacHado, 878 P.2d 1386 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4311(E)(4) — 1 case
State ex rel. Horne v. Anthony, 303 P.3d 59 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013). “The complaint named both the Racketeering Defendants and the Appellants as parties “in that they have timely filed claims pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4311.” ¶ 4 The complaint seeks in rem racketeering forfeiture under A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4311(F) — 7 cases
State Ex Rel. Goddard v. Ochoa, 228 P.3d 950 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). “¶ 6 The trial court held a hearing on March 2, 2009.”
State ex rel. Brnovich v. Culver, 375 P.3d 83 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). “Here, the State complied with the requirements of A.R.S. §§ 13-4311, -4308 (2010), -4307 (2010), and -4306 (2010).”
State, Ex Rel. Horne v. Campos, 250 P.3d 201 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). “¶ 11 The State then applied for an order of forfeiture in rem of the Noe Property, asserting neither Campos, nor anyone else, had filed a timely claim to it pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4311. As an alternative ground for forfeiture, it also moved for partial summary judgment based on…”
State v. Counterman, 992 P.2d 1 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999). “In denying the Countermans’ motion, the trial court stated: A.R.S. § 13-4311(A) indicates that the state may obtain service "in the manner provided by § 13-4307 or by the rules of civil procedure.”
State v. Five Thousand Five Hundred & 00/100 Dollars ($5,500.00) in U.S. Currency, 817 P.2d 960 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991). “section 13-4311. We answer in the affirmative and affirm the judgment of the trial court.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4311(G) — 13 cases
State v. Jackson, 113 P.3d 112 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005). “§ 13-4309(6)(a), but he was obliged to follow other procedures outlined in A.R.S. § 13-4311. Subsection (G) of section 4311 provides, in relevant part: Within twenty days after service of the complaint, the claimant shall file and serve the answer to the complaint____The answer…”
State ex rel. Horne v. Anthony, 303 P.3d 59 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013). “The complaint named both the Racketeering Defendants and the Appellants as parties “in that they have timely filed claims pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4311.” ¶ 4 The complaint seeks in rem racketeering forfeiture under A.”
State Ex Rel. Brnovich v. Cisneros-Ruiz, 381 P.3d 244 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
State v. Five Thousand Five Hundred & 00/100 Dollars ($5,500.00) in U.S. Currency, 817 P.2d 960 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991). “section 13-4311. We answer in the affirmative and affirm the judgment of the trial court.”
Fitzgerald v. Superior Court, 845 P.2d 465 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4311(H) — 4 cases
In re United States Currency In Amount of $26,980.00, 18 P.3d 85 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000). “” It does not support an award of prejudgment interest from the date of the seizure. Gilbert also claims that Pima County brought “[a] portion of this matter” under A.”
State v. Spooner, 520 So. 2d 336 (La. 1988).
In Re $70,070 in U.S. Currency, 335 P.3d 545 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
State v. Five Thousand Five Hundred & 00/100 Dollars ($5,500.00) in U.S. Currency, 817 P.2d 960 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991). “section 13-4311. We answer in the affirmative and affirm the judgment of the trial court.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4311(K) — 10 cases
In re United States Currency in the Amount of $315,900.00, 902 P.2d 351 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995).
Matter of $10,098.00 in US Currency, 854 P.2d 1223 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993). “In its complaint, the City requested that the court set a hearing within sixty days of the filing of the complaint pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4311. At the same time the City served the complaint, it also served Dimitriou with nonuniform interrogatories.”
In re 1986 Chevrolet Corvette, 905 P.2d 1372 (Ariz. 1994).
Fitzgerald v. Superior Court, 845 P.2d 465 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992).
In Re One 1983 Toyota, 814 P.2d 356 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991). “Valentine filed a complaint and request for an order to show cause pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4311, claiming that she is the exclusive owner of the vehicle and that she acquired the vehicle prior to the occurrence of the conduct giving rise to forfeiture.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4311(K)(1989) — 1 case
State v. One Single Fam. Residence At 1810 East Second Avenue, 969 P.2d 166 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997). “…"probable cause.” Under the revised version of the statute, the state’s burden is "preponderance of the evidence.” A.R.S. § 13-4311 (Supp.1996).”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4311(L) — 3 cases
Wohlstrom v. Buchanan, 884 P.2d 687 (Ariz. 1994). “2d at 37 (similar facts sufficient to meet substantive concerns of § 13-4311). Support for our conclusion that this showing was sufficient can be found in comparable cases where standing has been allowed under the federal narcotics forfeiture statute, 21 U.”
In Re One 1983 Toyota, 814 P.2d 356 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991). “Valentine filed a complaint and request for an order to show cause pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4311, claiming that she is the exclusive owner of the vehicle and that she acquired the vehicle prior to the occurrence of the conduct giving rise to forfeiture.”
State ex rel. Corbin v. Valentine, 814 P.2d 356 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4311(M) — 8 cases
In re United States Currency In Amount of $26,980.00, 18 P.3d 85 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000). “” It does not support an award of prejudgment interest from the date of the seizure. Gilbert also claims that Pima County brought “[a] portion of this matter” under A.”
State, Ex Rel. Horne v. Campos, 250 P.3d 201 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). “¶ 11 The State then applied for an order of forfeiture in rem of the Noe Property, asserting neither Campos, nor anyone else, had filed a timely claim to it pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4311. As an alternative ground for forfeiture, it also moved for partial summary judgment based on…”
In re One Residence Located at 4030 W. Avocado, Cortaro Ridge, Lot 32, 908 P.2d 33 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995).
In Re One Residence at 319 E. Fairgrounds Dr., 71 P.3d 930 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
State v. Johnson (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4311(N)(l)(a) — 1 case
In Re $70,070 in U.S. Currency, 335 P.3d 545 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
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.