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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-809 (2026)

Priority of payments; application to traffic offenses; orders to reimburse public monies

✓ 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 defendant is sentenced to pay a fine or incarceration costs, payment and enforcement of restitution take priority over payment to the state.

B. Section 13-804 does not apply to traffic offenses, except for a violation of section 28-661, 28-662, 28-693, 28-1381, 28-1382 or 28-1383 or any local ordinance relating to the same subject matter of such sections.

C. The court may impose an additional fine on sentencing for any offense to require that the defendant reimburse the law enforcement agency for any public monies paid to any person.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1996–2024 · leading case: State of Arizona v. Vivek a Patel, 486 P.3d 188 (Ariz. 2021).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State of Arizona v. Vivek a Patel, 486 P.3d 188 (Ariz. 2021). · cites it 6× “This construction also permits § 13-809 to be read in harmony with §§ 13-603(C) and -804 for the purpose of awarding restitution consistent with the VBR.”
State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Superior Court, 920 P.2d 784 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “In fact, AR.S. § 13-809 specifically exempts traffic offenses from those offenses for which restitution is required.”
State v. Mata, 550 P.3d 619 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 13-809(B). Because the offense here was a traffic offense under § 28-672, AHCCCS was not eligible to receive restitution under this first alternative.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-809(B) — 2 cases
State of Arizona v. Vivek a Patel, 486 P.3d 188 (Ariz. 2021). “This construction also permits § 13-809 to be read in harmony with §§ 13-603(C) and -804 for the purpose of awarding restitution consistent with the VBR.”
State v. Mata, 550 P.3d 619 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024). “See A.R.S. § 13-809(B). Because the offense here was a traffic offense under § 28-672, AHCCCS was not eligible to receive restitution under this first alternative.”
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.