A. The chief adult probation officer in each county, with approval of the presiding judge of the superior court, shall appoint adult intensive probation teams consisting of one adult probation officer and one surveillance officer, two adult probation officers or one adult probation officer and two surveillance officers.
B. A two person intensive probation team shall supervise no more than twenty-five persons at one time, and a three person intensive probation team shall supervise no more than forty persons at one time.
C. The adult intensive probation officers shall meet the bonding requirements and experience and education standards established pursuant to section 12-251.
D. The adult intensive probation team may serve warrants on, make arrests of and bring before the court persons who have violated the terms of intensive probation.
E. The adult intensive probation and surveillance officers both have the authority of a peace officer in the performance of their duties but are not eligible to participate in the public safety personnel retirement system.
F. The adult intensive probation team shall:
1. Secure and keep a complete identification record of each person who is being supervised and a written statement of the conditions of the probation.
2. Exercise close supervision and observation over persons who are granted intensive probation pursuant to supreme court guidelines. The guidelines must include both of the following:
(a) Visual contact with each probationer at least four times per week or as otherwise deemed appropriate.
(b) Verification of the probationer's employment.
3. Obtain and assemble information concerning the conduct of persons who are granted intensive probation and report the information to the court.
4. Report to the court if the probationer engages in conduct constituting an offense.
5. Bring a probationer who violates a term of intensive probation into court if, in the judgment of the adult intensive probation officer, the probationer's conduct justifies revoking the intensive probation.
6. Monitor the payment of restitution, monetary obligations and probation fees and notify the court of any probationer who fails to pay restitution, monetary obligations or fees.
7. Perform any other responsibilities required by the terms and conditions imposed by the court.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
18
cases, 1973–2018 · leading case:
State v. Butrick, 558 P.2d 908 (Ariz. 1976).
State v. Butrick, 558 P.2d 908 (Ariz. 1976).
· cites it 9× “After trial without a jury, the court convicted appellant of exhibiting a deadly weapon other than in self-defense, a violation of A.R.S. § 13-916, suspended imposition of the sentence and placed him on five years probation.”
United States v. Boaz, 558 F.3d 800 (8th Cir. 2009).
· cites it 2× “” See Ariz.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 13-916 (1974) (repealed) (“A person who, not in necessary self-defense, in the presence of another, draws or exhibits any deadly weapon in a threatening manner, or who, in any manner, unlawfully uses the weapon in a fight or quarrel, is guilty of a…”
State v. Gordon, 584 P.2d 1163 (Ariz. 1978).
· cites it 4× “[2] Compare A.R.S. § 13-916 with A.R.S. § 13-241. [3] Other jurisdictions also include the tort concept of assault within their criminal codes, that is, an intentional creation of an apprehension of battery.”
State v. Davis, 570 P.2d 776 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977).
· cites it 4× “He was convicted by a jury of the assault charges and placed on probation for a period of ten years on the condition that he spend one year in the Pima County Jail.”
State v. Patton, 665 P.2d 587 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 5× “The trial court determined that A.R.S. § 13-916 was a lesser included offense and found appellant guilty of that offense.”
State v. Pearce, 527 P.2d 297 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1974).
· cites it 7× “Terry Lee Pearce [defendant] was convicted with each of three counts charging him with exhibiting a gun in a threatening manner, an offense under A.R.S. § 13-916. 1 This appeal followed: Two questions are presented on this appeal : 1.”
State v. Dixon, 521 P.2d 148 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1974).
· cites it 4× “Pursuant to a plea bargain, an amended information was filed in August of 1973 charging him with exhibiting a deadly weapon other than in self-defense, a violation of A.R.S. § 13-916. On the same day, before the Honorable Jack G.”
State v. Long, 589 P.2d 1312 (Ariz. 1979).
· cites it 2× “This is an appeal from a judgment and conviction of exhibiting a deadly weapon other than in self-defense in violation of A.R.S. § 13-916. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 17A A.”
State v. Ortiz, 571 P.2d 1060 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977).
· cites it 2× “Appellant was indicted on one count of exhibiting a weapon not in self-defense in violation of A.R.S. § 13-916, as amended, and one count of possession of a pistol by a criminal in violation of A.”
State v. Thornbrugh, 540 P.2d 192 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1975).
· cites it 4× “Here, the record shows that defendant specifically requested the trial court to give an instruction on the lesser offense which is covered by A.R.S. § 13-916, as amended Laws 1969. Therefore, he is precluded from reurging error in this regard.”
State v. Waring, 508 P.2d 1167 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1973).
· cites it 4× “The plea bargain took the form of the state filing an amended information charging the defendant with exhibiting a deadly weapon other than in self-defense in violation of A.R.S. § 13-916 (1969), to which the defendant entered a plea of guilty.”
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.