Arizona Revised Statutes
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-2802 (2026)
Arizona Medical Marijuana Act; limitations
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official)
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
36-2802. Arizona Medical Marijuana Act; limitations
(Caution: 1998 Prop. 105 applies)
This chapter does not authorize any person to engage in, and does not prevent the imposition of any civil, criminal or other penalties for engaging in, the following conduct:
A. Undertaking any task under the influence of marijuana that would constitute negligence or professional malpractice.
B. Possessing or engaging in the medical use of marijuana:
1. On a school bus.
2. On the grounds of any preschool or primary or secondary school.
3. In any correctional facility.
C. Smoking marijuana:
1. On any form of public transportation.
2. In any public place.
D. Operating, navigating or being in actual physical control of any motor vehicle, aircraft or motorboat while under the influence of marijuana, except that a registered qualifying patient shall not be considered to be under the influence of marijuana solely because of the presence of metabolites or components of marijuana that appear in insufficient concentration to cause impairment.
E. Using marijuana except as authorized under this chapter.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31
cases (7 in the last 5 years), 2013–2024 · leading case: Dobson v. McClennen, 361 P.3d 374 (Ariz. 2015).
Dobson v. McClennen, 361 P.3d 374 (Ariz. 2015). “” A.R.S. § 36-2802(D). However, “a registered qualifying patient shall not be considered to be under the influence of marijuana solely because of the presence of metabolites or components of marijuana that appear in insufficient concentration to cause impairment.”
Darrah v. Hon. mcclennen/mesa, 337 P.3d 550 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). “§ 36-2802 expressly prohibits, however, driving while under the influence of marijuana, except that under § 36- 2802(D), an authorized medical marijuana user “shall not be considered to be under the influence of marijuana solely because of the presence of 2 In his petition,…”
Dobson v. McClennen, 337 P.3d 568 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). “The superior court next found that A.R.S. § 36-2802(D) (providing “that a registered qualifying patient shall not be considered to be under the influence of marijuana solely because of the presence of metabolites or components of marijuana that appear in insufficient…”
State of Arizona v. Ronald James Sisco II, 373 P.3d 549 (Ariz. 2016). “§ 13-3405(A) (criminalizing marijuana possession and use in Arizona); AR.S. § 36-2802(E) (limiting immunity from civil, criminal, or other penalties for using marijuana to instances where “authorized under [AMMA]”).”
Ishak v. McClennen Ex Rel. Cnty. of Maricopa, 388 P.3d 1 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). “The court cited A.R.S. § 36-2802(D) (2016), which expressly allows prosecution of a medical marijuana cardholder in some circumstances, with one important limitation: This chapter does not authorize any person to engage in, and does not prevent the imposition of any civil,…”
State of Arizona v. Ian Harvey Cheatham, 375 P.3d 66 (Ariz. 2016). “We need not address here the scope of AMMA’s provisions stating that the Act does not authorize smoking marijuana in any public place or on any means of public transportation. Cheatham was not a registered qualifying patient, and no other facts known to the officer would have…”
State of Arizona v. Robert Gear, 372 P.3d 287 (Ariz. 2016). “See A.R.S. § 36-2802(D). But central to the Court’s analysis in Dobson was the language of the statutory immunity, which provides that “a registered qualifying patient shall not be considered to be under the influence of marijuana solely because of the presence of metabolites or…”
JH2K I LLC v. Ariz. Dep't of Health Servs., 438 P.3d 676 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019). “¶17 Likewise, neither the language in A.R.S. § 36-2802 nor the use of the word "school" in A.”
White Mountain Health Ctr., Inc. v. Maricopa Cnty., 386 P.3d 416 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). “, A.R.S. §§ 36-2802, -2811, -2813, -2814; see also Ariz.”
State of Arizona v. Andre Lee Juwaun Maestas, 417 P.3d 774 (Ariz. 2018). “Because the AMMA sets forth a list of locations where the legislature may impose “civil, criminal or other penalties” when a person possesses or uses marijuana, § 36-2802, and because that list does not include college and university campuses (unlike pre-, primary-, and…”
State of Arizona v. Ronald James Sisco II, 359 P.3d 1 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). “See § 36-2802(0(2), (D). And police can easily develop facts about places where marijuana is being grown or stored that suggest the activity there is criminal, whether from their own observations, consensual encounters, or information supplied by informants.”
State v. Maestas, 394 P.3d 21 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). “A.R.S. § 36-2802(B). ¶ 7 In 2012, the Arizona Legislature modified the AMMA by prohibiting marijuana possession and use in additional places.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-2802(B) — 5 cases
State of Arizona v. Andre Lee Juwaun Maestas, 417 P.3d 774 (Ariz. 2018). “Because the AMMA sets forth a list of locations where the legislature may impose “civil, criminal or other penalties” when a person possesses or uses marijuana, § 36-2802, and because that list does not include college and university campuses (unlike pre-, primary-, and…”
State v. Maestas, 394 P.3d 21 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). “A.R.S. § 36-2802(B). ¶ 7 In 2012, the Arizona Legislature modified the AMMA by prohibiting marijuana possession and use in additional places.”
State v. Tagge, 442 P.3d 71 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
3 Sl v. State (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024).
3 Sl v. State (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-2802(B)(1) — 2 cases
State of Arizona v. Andre Lee Juwaun Maestas, 417 P.3d 774 (Ariz. 2018). “Because the AMMA sets forth a list of locations where the legislature may impose “civil, criminal or other penalties” when a person possesses or uses marijuana, § 36-2802, and because that list does not include college and university campuses (unlike pre-, primary-, and…”
State of Arizona v. Daniel Louis Santillanes (Ariz. 2024).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-2802(B)(2) — 2 cases
3 Sl v. State (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024).
3 Sl v. State (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-2802(C) — 1 case
State v. Tagge, 442 P.3d 71 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-2802(C)(2) — 3 cases
State of Arizona v. Ronald James Sisco II, 359 P.3d 1 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). “See § 36-2802(0(2), (D). And police can easily develop facts about places where marijuana is being grown or stored that suggest the activity there is criminal, whether from their own observations, consensual encounters, or information supplied by informants.”
State v. Tagge, 442 P.3d 71 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
State of Arizona v. Ronald James Sisco II (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-2802(D) — 10 cases
Dobson v. McClennen, 361 P.3d 374 (Ariz. 2015). “” A.R.S. § 36-2802(D). However, “a registered qualifying patient shall not be considered to be under the influence of marijuana solely because of the presence of metabolites or components of marijuana that appear in insufficient concentration to cause impairment.”
Darrah v. Hon. mcclennen/mesa, 337 P.3d 550 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). “§ 36-2802 expressly prohibits, however, driving while under the influence of marijuana, except that under § 36- 2802(D), an authorized medical marijuana user “shall not be considered to be under the influence of marijuana solely because of the presence of 2 In his petition,…”
Dobson v. McClennen, 337 P.3d 568 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). “The superior court next found that A.R.S. § 36-2802(D) (providing “that a registered qualifying patient shall not be considered to be under the influence of marijuana solely because of the presence of metabolites or components of marijuana that appear in insufficient…”
Ishak v. McClennen Ex Rel. Cnty. of Maricopa, 388 P.3d 1 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). “The court cited A.R.S. § 36-2802(D) (2016), which expressly allows prosecution of a medical marijuana cardholder in some circumstances, with one important limitation: This chapter does not authorize any person to engage in, and does not prevent the imposition of any civil,…”
State of Arizona v. Robert Gear, 372 P.3d 287 (Ariz. 2016). “See A.R.S. § 36-2802(D). But central to the Court’s analysis in Dobson was the language of the statutory immunity, which provides that “a registered qualifying patient shall not be considered to be under the influence of marijuana solely because of the presence of metabolites or…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-2802(E) — 9 cases
State of Arizona v. Ronald James Sisco II, 373 P.3d 549 (Ariz. 2016). “§ 13-3405(A) (criminalizing marijuana possession and use in Arizona); AR.S. § 36-2802(E) (limiting immunity from civil, criminal, or other penalties for using marijuana to instances where “authorized under [AMMA]”).”
State of Arizona v. Ian Harvey Cheatham, 375 P.3d 66 (Ariz. 2016). “We need not address here the scope of AMMA’s provisions stating that the Act does not authorize smoking marijuana in any public place or on any means of public transportation. Cheatham was not a registered qualifying patient, and no other facts known to the officer would have…”
Dobson v. McClennen, 361 P.3d 374 (Ariz. 2015). “” A.R.S. § 36-2802(D). However, “a registered qualifying patient shall not be considered to be under the influence of marijuana solely because of the presence of metabolites or components of marijuana that appear in insufficient concentration to cause impairment.”
State of Arizona v. Ronald James Sisco II, 359 P.3d 1 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). “See § 36-2802(0(2), (D). And police can easily develop facts about places where marijuana is being grown or stored that suggest the activity there is criminal, whether from their own observations, consensual encounters, or information supplied by informants.”
Keenan Reed-Kaliher v. State of Arizona, 332 P.3d 587 (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.