A. On the filing of a petition pursuant to section 36-3704, the judge shall determine if probable cause exists to believe that the person named in the petition is a sexually violent person.
B. If the judge determines that probable cause exists to believe that the person named in the petition is a sexually violent person, the judge shall order that the person be detained in a licensed facility under the supervision of the superintendent of the Arizona state hospital.
C. On motion of the respondent filed within ten days after service of the petition, the court shall hold a probable cause hearing.
D. Within seventy-two hours after a person is detained pursuant to subsection B of this section, the court shall provide the person with notice of and an opportunity to appear at a probable cause hearing to contest the probable cause finding made by the court pursuant to subsection A of this section. At the hearing, the court shall verify the person's identity and shall determine if probable cause exists to believe that the person is a sexually violent person. At the hearing, the state may rely on the petition that alleges that the person is a sexually violent person and that is filed pursuant to section 36-3704. The state may supplement the information in the petition with additional documentary evidence or live testimony.
E. At the probable cause hearing, the person has the following rights:
1. To present evidence on the person's behalf.
2. To cross-examine witnesses who testify against the person.
3. To view and copy all documents and reports in the court file.
F. After the hearing, if the court determines probable cause does not exist to believe that the person is a sexually violent person, the court shall dismiss the petition.
G. If at the hearing the court reaffirms that probable cause exists to believe that the person is a sexually violent person, the judge shall order an evaluation as to whether the person is a sexually violent person. A person whom the court selects from a list of competent professionals shall conduct the evaluation.
H. If the respondent has not requested a probable cause hearing within ten days after service of the petition, the court shall order an evaluation as to whether the respondent is a sexually violent person. A person whom the court selects from a list of competent professionals shall conduct the evaluation.
I. The county shall pay the costs of an evaluation conducted pursuant to subsection G or H of this section.
J. The referring agency shall make available to the department of health services all records concerning the person detained pursuant to this section.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
24
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1999–2022 · leading case:
Martin v. Reinstein, 987 P.2d 779 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
Martin v. Reinstein, 987 P.2d 779 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 16× “See A.R.S. § 36-3705. The probable cause petition is filed before the accused SVP's release from confinement.”
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Fields, 35 P.3d 82 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 3× “§ 36-3705(0). If the court reaffirms its finding, it is required to select, a “competent professional” to evaluate whether the individual is a sexually violent person.”
State v. Cofield, 107 P.3d 930 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 4× “See A.R.S. § 36-3705; see also In re Leon G., 204 Ariz.”
In Re Leon G., 59 P.3d 779 (Ariz. 2002).
· cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 36-3705. The person named in the petition may request a hearing on the issue of probable cause, at which he or she may introduce evidence, cross-examine witnesses, and review all information in the court's file.”
State v. Goode, 830 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 2002).
“, Ariz.Rev. Stat. Ann. § 36-3705 (Supp.2001); Iowa Code § 229A.”
State v. Hoggatt, 18 P.3d 1239 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 2× “A probable cause hearing pursuant to § 36-3705. 2. A trial pursuant to § 36-3706.”
In Re Thomas R., 233 P.3d 1158 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 6× “AR.S. § 36-3705(A) (2009). The person named in the petition may request a hearing to decide the issue of probable cause during which the person has a right to present evidence, cross-examine witnesses, and review and copy the court’s file.”
Commonwealth v. Knapp, 804 N.E.2d 885 (Mass. 2004).
“, Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-3705 (B) (West 2003) (“If the judge determines that probable cause exists .”
Anthony Garcia v. Hon. butler/state, 487 P.3d 256 (Ariz. 2021).
“See § 36-3705(D) (stating a court may rely on the SVP petition and any supplemental evidence provided by the state and the accused when making its probable cause determination).”
In Re Wilputte S., 100 P.3d 929 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 3× “” After reviewing the allegations in the petition, the trial court, pursuant to A.R.S. § 36-3705(B) (2003), ordered that W.”
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Superior Court, 7 P.3d 970 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 2× “¶ 3 On May 22, 2000, the State filed a “Motion for Eight Person Jury and Majority Verdict,” citing Article 2, Section 23 of the Arizona Constitution and A.”
In Re Leon G., 18 P.3d 169 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 2× “section 36-3705, petitioned the court to order Leon’s detention as a sexually violent person pending a trial on the issue.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-3705(0) — 1 case
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Fields, 35 P.3d 82 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
“§ 36-3705(0). If the court reaffirms its finding, it is required to select, a “competent professional” to evaluate whether the individual is a sexually violent person.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-3705(A) — 2 cases
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Fields, 35 P.3d 82 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
“§ 36-3705(0). If the court reaffirms its finding, it is required to select, a “competent professional” to evaluate whether the individual is a sexually violent person.”
In Re Thomas R., 233 P.3d 1158 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
“AR.S. § 36-3705(A) (2009). The person named in the petition may request a hearing to decide the issue of probable cause during which the person has a right to present evidence, cross-examine witnesses, and review and copy the court’s file.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-3705(B) — 3 cases
Martin v. Reinstein, 987 P.2d 779 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
“See A.R.S. § 36-3705. The probable cause petition is filed before the accused SVP's release from confinement.”
State v. Cofield, 107 P.3d 930 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).
“See A.R.S. § 36-3705; see also In re Leon G., 204 Ariz.”
In Re Wilputte S., 100 P.3d 929 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
“” After reviewing the allegations in the petition, the trial court, pursuant to A.R.S. § 36-3705(B) (2003), ordered that W.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-3705(C) — 3 cases
Martin v. Reinstein, 987 P.2d 779 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
“See A.R.S. § 36-3705. The probable cause petition is filed before the accused SVP's release from confinement.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-3705(D) — 3 cases
Martin v. Reinstein, 987 P.2d 779 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
“See A.R.S. § 36-3705. The probable cause petition is filed before the accused SVP's release from confinement.”
Anthony Garcia v. Hon. butler/state, 487 P.3d 256 (Ariz. 2021).
“See § 36-3705(D) (stating a court may rely on the SVP petition and any supplemental evidence provided by the state and the accused when making its probable cause determination).”
In Re Wilputte S., 100 P.3d 929 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
“” After reviewing the allegations in the petition, the trial court, pursuant to A.R.S. § 36-3705(B) (2003), ordered that W.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-3705(E) — 1 case
In Re Thomas R., 233 P.3d 1158 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
“AR.S. § 36-3705(A) (2009). The person named in the petition may request a hearing to decide the issue of probable cause during which the person has a right to present evidence, cross-examine witnesses, and review and copy the court’s file.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-3705(G) — 4 cases
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Fields, 35 P.3d 82 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
“§ 36-3705(0). If the court reaffirms its finding, it is required to select, a “competent professional” to evaluate whether the individual is a sexually violent person.”
In Re Thomas R., 233 P.3d 1158 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
“AR.S. § 36-3705(A) (2009). The person named in the petition may request a hearing to decide the issue of probable cause during which the person has a right to present evidence, cross-examine witnesses, and review and copy the court’s file.”
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.