Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 31-334 (2026)

Earnings of prisoner

✓ current as of May 2026

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

A. The work furlough administrator shall provide that all earnings of a prisoner be transmitted to the work furlough administrator.

B. From the earnings, the work furlough administrator shall pay the prisoner's board and personal expenses both inside and outside the detention facility. The work furlough administrator shall also, upon authorization from the court, make payments toward the support of the prisoner's dependents, if any, and toward any restitution ordered by the court. If there are any remaining funds, the work furlough administrator may, upon authorization of the prisoner, pay in full or in part the preexisting debts of the prisoner. Any balance shall be retained until the prisoner is discharged and thereupon shall be paid to him.

C. The work furlough administrator shall make provisions for a separate trust account with the local governing unit through which all earnings shall be channeled. This responsibility may be delegated to an appropriate fiscal officer of the local governing unit.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1972–1998 · leading case: Green v. Superior Court, Etc., 647 P.2d 166 (Ariz. 1982).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Green v. Superior Court, Etc., 647 P.2d 166 (Ariz. 1982). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 31-334 directs that the earnings of the prisoner on work furlough be used for his support and *472 for payment toward the support of his dependents, as well as for any restitution ordered by the court.”

Hogan v. Arizona Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 501 P.2d 944 (Ariz. 1972). “” § 31-334 A.R.S. § 31-233, subsec. B also provides that the director may require the inmate to reimburse the State in whole or in part for expenses incurred by the State in connection therewith.”

Duarte v. State, 971 P.2d 214 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 31-334; see Hogan v. Arizona Bd.”

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.