Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 41
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1604.08 (2026)

Global position system monitoring: daily fee; deposit

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

A. The department shall assign any person who is in the custody of the department and who was convicted of a violation of section 13-705 to a global position monitoring system on the person's release on parole, community supervision, work release or other conditional or temporary release.

B. The department may enter into a contract for the provision of global position monitoring services.

C. The department may charge a person who is assigned to a global position monitoring system a daily fee not to exceed the department's expenses for the system.

D. Monies collected pursuant to this section shall be deposited, pursuant to sections 35-146 and 35-147, in the community corrections enhancement fund established by section 31-418.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1993–2022 · leading case: Long v. Arizona Bd. of Pardons & Parole, 885 P.2d 178 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Long v. Arizona Bd. of Pardons & Parole, 885 P.2d 178 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 10× “When a court commits an offender to the program, both boot camp and community release are aspects of probation, and the court retains jurisdiction to decide what consequences result from any violation of the conditions of community release.”
Fletcher Casey, Jr., on Behalf of Themselves & All Others Similarly Situated v. Samuel A. Lewis, Dir., Arizona Dep't of Corr., 4 F.3d 1516 (9th Cir. 1993). “(2/28/91) at 65:8-10 (some of the prisoners assigned to the Special Management Unit are assigned to the shock incarceration program and are awaiting the formation of a new platoon); Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 41-1604.08(A)(2) (1992) (only prisoners serving first term of incarceration and…”
Tucker v. Arizona Dep't of Corr. (D. Ariz. 2022). · cites it 2× “) Tucker asserts the GPS monitoring 27 of Plaintiff was required by Arizona Law A.R.S. § 41-1604.08 and is immaterial regarding 28 1 applicable parole conditions.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1604.08(A)(10) — 1 case
Long v. Arizona Bd. of Pardons & Parole, 885 P.2d 178 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). “When a court commits an offender to the program, both boot camp and community release are aspects of probation, and the court retains jurisdiction to decide what consequences result from any violation of the conditions of community release.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1604.08(A)(2) — 1 case
Fletcher Casey, Jr., on Behalf of Themselves & All Others Similarly Situated v. Samuel A. Lewis, Dir., Arizona Dep't of Corr., 4 F.3d 1516 (9th Cir. 1993). “(2/28/91) at 65:8-10 (some of the prisoners assigned to the Special Management Unit are assigned to the shock incarceration program and are awaiting the formation of a new platoon); Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 41-1604.08(A)(2) (1992) (only prisoners serving first term of incarceration and…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1604.08(C) — 1 case
Long v. Arizona Bd. of Pardons & Parole, 885 P.2d 178 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). “When a court commits an offender to the program, both boot camp and community release are aspects of probation, and the court retains jurisdiction to decide what consequences result from any violation of the conditions of community release.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1604.08(D) — 1 case
Long v. Arizona Bd. of Pardons & Parole, 885 P.2d 178 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). “When a court commits an offender to the program, both boot camp and community release are aspects of probation, and the court retains jurisdiction to decide what consequences result from any violation of the conditions of community release.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1604.08(I)(2) — 1 case
Long v. Arizona Bd. of Pardons & Parole, 885 P.2d 178 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). “When a court commits an offender to the program, both boot camp and community release are aspects of probation, and the court retains jurisdiction to decide what consequences result from any violation of the conditions of community release.”
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.