Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 8
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-238 (2026)

Advisory hearing; DNA

✓ text as last checked Oct. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

8-238. Advisory hearing; DNA

A. If a juvenile is charged with a violation of any of the following offenses and is summoned to appear at an advisory hearing, the judicial officer shall order the juvenile to report within five days to the law enforcement agency that investigated the juvenile or to the agency's designee and submit a sufficient sample of buccal cells or other bodily substances for deoxyribonucleic acid testing and extraction:

1. An offense listed in title 13, chapter 11.

2. A violation of section 13-1402, 13-1403, 13-1404, 13-1405, 13-1406, 13-1410, 13-1411 or 13-1417.

3. A violation of section 13-1507 or 13-1508.

4. A violation of any serious offense as defined in section 13-706 that is a dangerous offense as defined in section 13-105.

B. If a juvenile does not comply with an order issued pursuant to subsection A of this section, the court shall revoke the juvenile's release.

C. The investigating law enforcement agency or its designee shall transmit the sample to the department of public safety.

D. Section 13-610, subsections H, I, J, K, M and N, are applicable to samples collected pursuant to this section.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1965–2023 · leading case: MARIO W. v. Kaipio, 265 P.3d 389 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
MARIO W. v. Kaipio, 265 P.3d 389 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 151× “A samples from five of the juveniles (Mario, Bradley, Alexis, Eric, and Noble) (hereinafter "five juveniles") is constitutional but that the proposed taking of DNA samples from two of the juveniles (Bailey and Devon) ("two juveniles") would be unconstitutional in the absence of…”
Mario W. v. Hon. kaipio/state, 281 P.3d 476 (Ariz. 2012). · cites it 10× “But because the State already will have obtained a buccal sample from those complying with a § 8-238 order, it may obtain a DNA profile from the sample once a juvenile fails to appear as required by law or court order.”
In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967). · cites it 2× “[100] ARS § 8-238. [101] Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.”
In re the Appeal in Maricopa Cnty. Juv. Action No. JS-7499, 786 P.2d 1004 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 6× “The juvenile court made findings to support the admission of the transcript on three separate bases: Rule 804(b)(3), the exception for former testimony, which applies only when the hearsay declarant is *157 “unavailable as a \yitness”; Rule 803(24), the “catch-all” exception to…”
State v. Mitcham, 535 P.3d 948 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× ““A judicial order to provide a buccal cell sample occasions no constitutionally distinguishable intrusion” from an order to provide fingerprints. Id. at ¶ 25.”
In re the Appeal in Maricopa Cnty. Juv. Action No. JD-6123, 956 P.2d 511 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “section 8-238, which provides for a, hearsay exception as to a minor’s statements regarding acts of abuse or neglect perpetrated against him or her.”
In re Charles Jason R., Jr., 572 A.2d 1080 (Me. 1990). “, Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 8-238 (1989); Ga.Code Ann.”
Application of Gault, 407 P.2d 760 (Ariz. 1965). · cites it 3× “§ 8-228, and the record must be destroyed after a prescribed period of time, A.R.S. § 8-238. We think the juvenile court has discretion to order or deny the taking of a transcript.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-238(A): 3 cases
Mario W. v. Hon. kaipio/state, 281 P.3d 476 (Ariz. 2012). “But because the State already will have obtained a buccal sample from those complying with a § 8-238 order, it may obtain a DNA profile from the sample once a juvenile fails to appear as required by law or court order.”
State v. Mitcham, 535 P.3d 948 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023). ““A judicial order to provide a buccal cell sample occasions no constitutionally distinguishable intrusion” from an order to provide fingerprints. Id. at ¶ 25.”
MARIO W. v. Kaipio, 265 P.3d 389 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). “A samples from five of the juveniles (Mario, Bradley, Alexis, Eric, and Noble) (hereinafter "five juveniles") is constitutional but that the proposed taking of DNA samples from two of the juveniles (Bailey and Devon) ("two juveniles") would be unconstitutional in the absence of…”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-238(B): 1 case
Mario W. v. Hon. kaipio/state, 281 P.3d 476 (Ariz. 2012). “But because the State already will have obtained a buccal sample from those complying with a § 8-238 order, it may obtain a DNA profile from the sample once a juvenile fails to appear as required by law or court order.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-238(C): 1 case
Mario W. v. Hon. kaipio/state, 281 P.3d 476 (Ariz. 2012). “But because the State already will have obtained a buccal sample from those complying with a § 8-238 order, it may obtain a DNA profile from the sample once a juvenile fails to appear as required by law or court order.”
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.