Home | Search | By Category
By House Bill | By Senate Bill |  By Chapter

 
.

CATEGORIES

CIVIL
CIVIL TRAFFIC
COURT ADMINISTRATION
CRIMINAL
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
FAMILY LAW
.
2008 Arizona Judicial Branch End-of Session Legislative Report Cover
.

CATEGORIES

GOVERNMENT
JUVENILE
OTHER
PROBATE
TRANSPORTATION
VETOED
.
 
   

Chapter 40

SB1057

Effective Date
General

Item of interest to:
Superior Court:
Chief probation Officer
Court Administrator
Judge
Justice Court:
Court Administrator
Municipal Court:
Court Administrator
Administrative Office of the Courts

LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER; DEFINITION; REPRESENTATION
Sen. Chuck Gray

“Probationary employee” is removed from the definition of probation, correction, and detention officers for purposes of rights associated with disciplinary actions. The bill is designed to ensure probationary employees do not enjoy the same rights under the statute as permanent employees in internal investigations.

Statute amended:  A.R.S. § 38-1101

Court Impact:  Excludes probationary "Probation officer" employed by this state or a political subdivision of this state from the rights granted to permanent employees.

Back to Top

Chapter 46

HB2587

Effective Date
General

Item of interest to:
Superior Court:
Clerk of the Court
Court Administrator
Clerk
Judge
Justice Court:
Court Administrator
Clerk
Justice of the Peace
 
Administrative Office of the Courts

EXTENSION OF CREDIT; IDENTITY THEFT
Rep. Robson

A lender who does not use a consumer credit report in approving an application for an extension of credit is prohibited from lending money or extending credit unless the lender takes reasonable steps prior to extending credit or lending money to verify the consumer’s identity and confirm that the application for extension of credit is not the result of an identity theft.

A lender who uses a consumer credit report in approving an application for an extension of credit is required to take reasonable steps to verify the consumer’s identity and confirm that the application for extension of credit is not the result of identity theft if:

  • The lender was notified that a police report was filed with a consumer reporting agency and that the applicant was a victim of identity theft, or
  • The creditor was notified that the applicant placed a fraud alert or security freeze on the applicant’s credit report.

If a consumer proves by a preponderance of evidence that an extender of credit extended credit without taking reasonable steps to verify the consumer’s identity, it may be inferred that someone other than the consumer received the extension of credit.

A violation of A.R.S. §44-1698 (consumer credit reports; extension of credit; identity theft; security freeze; definition) constitutes an unlawful practice under A.R.S. §44-1522 (unlawful practices; intended interpretation of provisions), relating to consumer fraud, and is subject to enforcement by the Attorney General or through private action. Injunctive relief may be sought in order to prevent future violations of A.R.S. §44-1698. The remedies in the bill are not the only remedies available to a person whose identity was used to secure an extension of credit. Exclusions include increases in, changes to or reviews of existing open-end credit plans from qualifying as extensions of credit. Financial institutions that are required to have a customer identification program pursuant to federal regulation are exempted.

“Reasonable steps” is defined as any commercially reasonable action taken by an extender of credit that is intended to improve identity verification or confirmation or to lessen the likelihood of identity theft or aggravated identity theft.

Statute created:  A.R.S. § 44-1698

Court Impact:  Provides that if a consumer proves by a preponderance of evidence that an extender of credit extended credit without taking reasonable steps to verify the consumer’s identity, it may be inferred that someone other than the consumer received the extension of credit.

States that a violation of A.R.S. § 44-1698 constitutes an unlawful practice under A.R.S. §44-1522, relating to consumer fraud, and is subject to enforcement by the Attorney General or through private action.

Back to Top

Chapter 53

HB2620

Effective Date
Emergency
4/18/2008

Item of interest to:
Superior Court:
Court Administrator
Justice Court:
Court Administrator
Municipal Court:
Court Administrator
Administrative Office of the Courts

BUDGET; FISCAL YEAR 2007-2008
Rep. Boone

The bill makes $1.36 billion in adjustments to the previously enacted fiscal year (FY) 2008 budget. It transfers $487 million from the Budget Stabilization Fund, reverts approximately $296 million from various funds to the state general fund (GF), postpones a $272 million payment to schools until FY 08-09 (K-12 rollover), and reduces state agency operating budgets by approximately $309.7 million.

In pertinent part, HB2620 permanently reduces the judiciary operating budget by $1.1 million and transfers the following amounts to the state GF:

  • Juvenile delinquent reduction fund- $1,552,900
  • Judicial collection enhancement fund- $1,500,000
  • Supreme Court CJEF disbursement fund- $1,500,000
  • Arizona lengthy trial fund- $1,000,000.

Session Law - Budget

Court Impact:  Informational

Back to Top

Chapter 54

SB1050

Effective Date
General

Item of interest to:
Superior Court:
Clerk of the Court
Court Administrator
Judge
 
 
Administrative Office of the Courts

COURT REPORTER CERTIFICATION
Sen. Linda Gray

The statutory requirement for certificates issued by the Board of Certified Court Reporters to be renewed every year is removed and instead allows the time frame for the expiration and renewal of certificates is to be set in Rule. The sunset date of the Board is repealed.

Statute amended:  A.R.S. §32-4023
Statute repealed:  A.R.S. §32-4009

Court Impact:  Allows court reporter certification renewal and expiration to be set by Supreme Court Rule.

Back to Top

Chapter 80

SB1174

Effective Date
General

Item of interest to:
Superior Court:
Clerk of the Court
Court Administrator
Judge
 
 
Administrative Office of the Courts

NOTARY PUBLIC; REGISTRATION
Sen. Tibshraeny

Specific administrative duties related to notaries are transferred from the clerk of the superior court to the Secretary of State (SOS). Notary public certification and oath & bond filing fees will be paid to the SOS instead of the clerk of the superior court. Current law distributes these fees based on county population. SB 1174 applies the distribution percentage currently in statute for counties with a population exceeding 500,000 persons to all counties, except that monies currently deposited into the county general fund are diverted into the Notary Bond Fund. The Notary Bond Fund is established to defray the cost of the SOS assuming the additional administrative duties related to notary certificates, oaths and bonds and the Fund is administered by the SOS.
Contains a Prop 108 clause (two-thirds vote required for passage).

Statutes amended:  A.R.S.§ 8-135, 8-550.01, 12-113, 12-135, 12-284, 12-305, 33-502, 36-3002, 38-233, 38-810, 41-126, 41-312, 41-315, 41-317, 41-322, 41-330, 41-2402
Statutes created:  A.R.S. §41-178, 41-314
Statute repealed:  A.R.S. §41-332

Court Impact:  Transfers responsibility for for filing the oath and bond of a notary public, for issuing a certificate as to official capacity of a notary public and affixing a seal to the certificate from the clerk of superior court to the secretary of state. Maintains the distribution of funds by the secretary of state in the same percentages to the alternative dispute resolution fund, the judicial collection enhancement fund, the confidential intermediary and fiduciary fund and child abuse prevention fund. The change requires superior court to update their fee schedule in their automation system.

Back to Top

Chapter 109

HB2443

Effective Date
General

Item of interest to:
Superior Court:
Court Administrator
Judge
Justice Court:
Court Administrator
Justice of the Peace
 
Administrative Office of the Courts

CONSTABLES; ETHICS; TRAINING
Rep. Kavanagh

The minimum amount of annual training that constables are required to attend is increased to 16 hours. Monies from the Constable Ethics Standards and Training fund may used to pay for constable training.
Statute amended: A.R.S. §22-137

Statute amended:  A.R.S. §22-137

Court Impact:  Informational, regarding training requirements for constables.

Back to Top

Chapter 150

HB2623

Effective Date
General

Item of interest to:
Superior Court:
Court Administrator
Judge
Justice Court:
Court Administrator
Justice of the Peace
 
Administrative Office of the Courts

CONSTABLES; PEACE OFFICERS STATUS
Rep. Pearce

The definition of a peace officer is expanded to include constables, however, a constable has peace officer authority only during performance of official duties. Deputies appointed by constables are required to meet the minimum peace officer qualifications set forth by the Arizona Peace Officers Standards and Training board.

Statutes amended:  A.R.S. §13-105, 22-131, 41-1823

Court Impact:  Informational, constables are now included in the definition of peace officers but only in the performance of their official duties. A deputy constable must now be certified by Arizona Peace Officers Standards and Training board.

Back to Top

Chapter 171

HB2190

Effective Date
General

Item of interest to:
Superior Court:
Court Administrator
Judge
Justice Court:
Court Administrator
Justice of the Peace
 
Administrative Office of the Courts

CONSTABLE ETHICS; BOARD; MEMBERSHIP
Rep. Griggs

One member of the Constable Ethics Standards and Training Board must be a board member of the Arizona Multi-Housing Association at the time of appointment.

Statutes amended:  A.R.S. §22-136

Court Impact:  Informational pertaining to constables.

Back to Top

Chapter 193

SB1339

Effective Date
General

Item of interest to:
Superior Court:
Chief Probation Officer
Court Administrator
Judge
 
Municipal Court:
Court Administrator
Judge/Magistrate
Administrative Office of the Courts

LAW ENFORCEMENT; PROBATION; OFFICERS; INVESTIGATIONS
Sen. Linda Gray

The employer of a law enforcement or probation officer may require an employee to submit to a polygraph if the officer makes a statement during an investigation that differs from information known to the employer about the investigation and it is necessary to reconcile the differences in order to complete the investigation. The polygraph must be recorded and a copy must be provided to the officer.

The right to a peremptory change of hearing officer that currently applies to cases being heard by the office of administrative hearings is expanded to include cases where the employer is located in a county of 250,000 or more or a city of 65,000 or more. The employer carries the burden of proof in the appeal of a disciplinary action. The definition of a disciplinary action is modified to include any dismissal, demotion or suspension of more than 24 hours, currently 40 hours.

Note that population is based on most recent decennial census.

Statute Amended:  A.R.S. §38-1101

Court Impact:  A court employing a probation officer in a county with a population greater than 250,000 or a city with a population greater than 65,000 or more persons may require a probation officer to submit to a polygraph test. The test may only be conducted if the officer makes a statement to the employer during an investigation that differs from other information relating to the investigation that is known to the employer and reconciling that difference is necessary to complete the investigation.

Back to Top

Chapter 288

HB2275

Effective Date
General

Item of interest to:
Superior Court:
Clerk of Court
Court Administrator
Judge
Clerk
Justice Court:
Court Administrator
Justice of the Peace
Clerk
Municipal Court:
Court Administrator
Judge/Magistrate
Clerk
Administrative Office of the Courts

BUDGET RECONCILIATION; HEALTH
Rep. Hershberger

In pertinent part, and beginning January 1, 2010, a process of certification is established for persons employed as behavior analysts conducting habilitation for individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder. The Board of Psychologist Examiners may petition the superior court to enjoin a non-licensed person from practicing behavior analysis or any actions by a licensee that are of immediate threat to the public.

Acts of engaging in behavior analysis without proper licensure, securing a license by fraudulent means, impersonating a board member in order to issue a license, and using any combination of words, initials, or letters in order to give the appearance that one is licensed as a behavioral analyst are criminalized and classified as a Class 2 misdemeanor.

In cases where the state pays the costs of a defendant’s inpatient restoration to competency treatment, HB2275 continues to require Pima County, Maricopa County and all cities to reimburse the Department of Health Services for 86% of the cost for the treatment services in fiscal year 2009.

Statutes Amended: A.R.S. § 32-2065, 36-2901.03, 36-2912
Statutes Created: A.R.S. §36-2912.04, 36-2981.01, 41-3016.28
Statutes Repealed: A.R.S. §41-3008.16

Court Impact: Courts should be aware of the effect of this bill that establishes A.R.S. § 32-2091.12 (A), (B)(1), (B)(2), & (C), as class 2 misdemeanors for acts of engaging in behavior analysis without proper licensure, securing a license by fraudulent means, impersonating a board member in order to issue a license, and using any combination of words, initials, or letters in order to give the appearance that one is licensed as a behavioral analyst. The change requires courts to update their automation system.

Allows the Board of Psychologist Examiner to file a petition in superior court to enjoin a non-licensed person from practicing behavior analysis or any actions by a licensee that are of immediate threat to the public.

Back to Top

 
 
22 August 2007 © Arizona Supreme Court. All Rights Reserved Top of Page