{"id":4257,"date":"2011-01-11T18:40:13","date_gmt":"2010-06-05T07:54:02","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2010-06-05T07:54:02","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=4257","title":{"rendered":"AZ2: In a business records seizure, magistrate should take testimony on return of records"},"content":{"rendered":"

In a seizure of business records, the Arizona statute involved required that the magistrate take testimony on whether the documents should be returned when no forfeiture of the seized property is sought. In re Search Warrant, No. 08 SW 1417<\/a>, 224 Ariz. 505, 233 P.3d 618 (Ariz. App. 2010):<\/p>\n

P12 We agree with the essence of Franklin\u2019s interpretation. Section 13-3922<\/a> clearly and unambiguously provides that a magistrate \u201cshall proceed to take testimony\u201d unless a forfeiture action relating to the same property interest \u201cis or has been\u201d filed. Thus, if such a forfeiture action is pending, the magistrate is precluded only from taking testimony. Nothing in the statute’s plain language suggests the magistrate also is precluded from deciding the motion on the papers. Despite neither citing supporting authority nor providing any analysis, the state argues this interpretation of the statute is \u201cabsurdly tortured.\u201d We disagree. Because the language of \u00a7 13-3922<\/a> is clear, we need not examine either the statutory scheme as a whole or the statute’s context, subject matter, historical background, effects, consequences, spirit, or purpose. See Ross, 214 Ariz. 280, P 22, 151 P.3d at 1264.<\/p>\n

P13 Accordingly, the trial court erred in dismissing Franklin’s motion to controvert. Moreover, we observe that the court may take testimony, if offered, relevant to Franklin’s motion as it relates to the seizure of his business records. Because the state has not sought forfeiture of those records, no \u201cproceeding pursuant to chapter 39 of this title is or has been initiated\u201d with respect to Franklin’s property interest in those records. \u00a7 13-3922(A)<\/a>. In light of our ruling, we need not address Franklin\u2019s remaining arguments.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4257","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4257","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4257"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4257\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4257"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4257"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4257"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}