Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 28
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-445 (2026)

Seal; authentication of records

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

A. The director shall adopt a seal of office to use to authenticate records and copies of records that are required to be made and kept by the department.

B. Each assistant director shall use the director's seal to authenticate records required to be made and kept within the assistant director's division.

C. Authenticated records or authenticated copies of records shall be received in evidence without further proof of their authenticity.  

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23 cases, 1964–2006 · leading case: State v. Jennings, 722 P.2d 258 (Ariz. 1986).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Jennings, 722 P.2d 258 (Ariz. 1986). · cites it 34× “Does due process require a hearing when the state revokes an individual’s driver’s license pursuant to A.R.S. § 28-445? 2. Does A.R.S. § 28-446(B) regarding notice of revocation apply when a driver’s license is revoked pursuant to A.”
Goulder v. Arizona Dept. of Transp., Motor Veh., 868 P.2d 997 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 15× “"; A.R.S. § 28-445 provides for mandatory revocation for conviction of a second or subsequent DWI conviction within a 60-month period.”
Goulder v. Arizona Dep't of Transp., 877 P.2d 280 (Ariz. 1994). · cites it 15× “” The state relies on Prim, in which Division Two assumed, without deciding, that an out-of-state conviction was within the scope of A.R.S. § 28-445. In deciding the only two issues before it, not relevant here, the court in Prim said, “A.”
Loughran v. Superior Court of Maricopa, 699 P.2d 1287 (Ariz. 1985). · cites it 12× “Is the revocation of a driver’s license pursuant to A.R.S. § 28-445 a civil or criminal penalty? 2.”
State v. Gonzales, 80 P.3d 276 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 5× “The relevant statutes in effect at that time were A.R.S. § 28-445, dealing with mandatory suspensions and revocations, and A.”
Bade v. Arizona Dep't of Transp., 722 P.2d 371 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 6× “Slightly over one year after Loughran’s sentence was imposed, the Department notified him that his license was revoked for a one year period, commencing on the date of notification and continuing for a period of one year, pursuant to A.R.S. § 28-445. In arriving at its final…”
State v. King, 146 P.3d 1274 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “§ 28-442, and “without further proof of their authenticity,” A.R.S. § 28-445(C). And, as the state points out, King did not challenge the constitutionality of the statutes below, nor has he on appeal.”
State v. Agee, 887 P.2d 588 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 7× “section 28-445, the statute at issue in this appeal, was amended by the addition of subsection B, which provides: “Compliance with the mailing provisions of § 28-453 constitutes notice of the revocation for purposes of prosecution under § 28-473 or 28-692.”
State v. City Court of City of Tucson, 640 P.2d 167 (Ariz. 1981). · cites it 4× “Because he had a previous conviction for driving while intoxicated within 24 months preceding the guilty plea to reckless driving, his driver's license was required to be revoked pursuant to A.R.S. § 28-445(6). In May of 1980, Krist filed a motion to withdraw the guilty plea on…”
Parker v. Prins, 754 P.2d 344 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 9× “The State of Arizona appeals the reinstatement of appellee’s driver’s license after it was revoked pursuant to A.R.S. § 28-445. Appellee, James H. Parker, a long-haul driver, was convicted of a second offense within 60 months of driving while under the influence of intoxicating…”
Campbell v. Superior Court, in & for Cty. of Maricopa, 523 P.2d 502 (Ariz. 1974). · cites it 10× “01 (B), dealing with license revocation, and A.R.S. § 28-445 must be read together. This Court further pointed out that • convictions for driving while under the influence were to be forwarded to the Highway Department after a final conviction (after the period of appeal had…”
Campbell v. Superior Court, Cnty. of Maricopa, 462 P.2d 801 (Ariz. 1969). · cites it 4× “” Also note § 28-445 as amended: “Mandatory revocation of license by department The department shall, in addition to the grounds for mandatory revocation provided for in the uniform act regulating traffic on highways, forthwith revoke the license of an operator or chauffeur upon…”
Show all 23 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-445(6) — 4 cases
State v. Jennings, 722 P.2d 258 (Ariz. 1986). “Does due process require a hearing when the state revokes an individual’s driver’s license pursuant to A.R.S. § 28-445? 2. Does A.R.S. § 28-446(B) regarding notice of revocation apply when a driver’s license is revoked pursuant to A.”
State v. City Court of City of Tucson, 640 P.2d 167 (Ariz. 1981). “Because he had a previous conviction for driving while intoxicated within 24 months preceding the guilty plea to reckless driving, his driver's license was required to be revoked pursuant to A.R.S. § 28-445(6). In May of 1980, Krist filed a motion to withdraw the guilty plea on…”
State v. City Court, 640 P.2d 187 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981).
State v. Jennings, 722 P.2d 334 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-445(7) — 2 cases
Goulder v. Arizona Dep't of Transp., 877 P.2d 280 (Ariz. 1994). “” The state relies on Prim, in which Division Two assumed, without deciding, that an out-of-state conviction was within the scope of A.R.S. § 28-445. In deciding the only two issues before it, not relevant here, the court in Prim said, “A.”
Campbell v. Superior Court, in & for Cty. of Maricopa, 523 P.2d 502 (Ariz. 1974). “01 (B), dealing with license revocation, and A.R.S. § 28-445 must be read together. This Court further pointed out that • convictions for driving while under the influence were to be forwarded to the Highway Department after a final conviction (after the period of appeal had…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-445(A)(7) — 3 cases
Goulder v. Arizona Dept. of Transp., Motor Veh., 868 P.2d 997 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). “"; A.R.S. § 28-445 provides for mandatory revocation for conviction of a second or subsequent DWI conviction within a 60-month period.”
Goulder v. Arizona Dep't of Transp., 868 P.2d 997 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993).
Forino v. Arizona Dep't of Transp., 952 P.2d 315 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-445(B) — 1 case
State v. Agee, 887 P.2d 588 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). “section 28-445, the statute at issue in this appeal, was amended by the addition of subsection B, which provides: “Compliance with the mailing provisions of § 28-453 constitutes notice of the revocation for purposes of prosecution under § 28-473 or 28-692.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-445(C) — 2 cases
State v. King, 146 P.3d 1274 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006). “§ 28-442, and “without further proof of their authenticity,” A.R.S. § 28-445(C). And, as the state points out, King did not challenge the constitutionality of the statutes below, nor has he on appeal.”
State of Arizona v. Steven James King (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
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.