The court shall order full restitution. The court may modify the amount, on its own motion or on the motion of the district attorney, the victim or victims, or the defendant. If a motion is made for modification of a restitution order, the victim shall be notified of that motion at least 10 days prior to the proceeding held to decide the motion. A victim at a restitution hearing or modification hearing described in this paragraph may testify by live, two-way audio and video transmission, if testimony by live, two-way audio and video transmission is available at the court.
The value of stolen or damaged property shall be the replacement cost of like property, or the actual cost of repairing the property when repair is possible. B Medical expenses. C Mental health counseling expenses. Lost wages shall include commission income as well as base wages. Commission income shall be established by evidence of commission income during the month period prior to the date of the crime for which restitution is being ordered, unless good cause for a shorter time period is shown. G Interest, at the rate of 10 percent per annum, that accrues as of the date of sentencing or loss, as determined by the court.
- NRS: CHAPTER - GENERAL PROVISIONS;
- Table of Contents.
- Navigation menu.
- Chef: The Story and Recipes of Chef Paul Mattison;
- State Identity Theft Statutes and Criminal Use of Personal ID!
- Wanton Women - 20 erotic lesbian stories (Xcite Best-Selling Lesbian Collections Book 5);
I Expenses incurred by an adult victim in relocating away from the defendant, including, but not limited to, deposits for utilities and telephone service, deposits for rental housing, temporary lodging and food expenses, clothing, and personal items. Expenses incurred pursuant to this section shall be verified by law enforcement to be necessary for the personal safety of the victim or by a mental health treatment provider to be necessary for the emotional well-being of the victim. K Expenses to retrofit a residence or vehicle, or both, to make the residence accessible to or the vehicle operational by the victim, if the victim is permanently disabled, whether the disability is partial or total, as a direct result of the crime.
Criminal possession of one or more identification documents issued to the same person is a class 1 misdemeanor. Proof that a person used or was in possession of the personal identification information of five or more individuals, unless satisfactorily explained, gives rise to an inference that the person who used or was in possession of the personal identification information did so knowingly and intentionally without authorization. A person commits the offense of aggravated identity fraud when he or she willfully and fraudulently uses any counterfeit or fictitious identifying information concerning a real, fictitious, or deceased person with intent to use such counterfeit or fictitious identifying information for the purpose of obtaining employment.
In regard to a violation of K.
Arizona SB - Wikipedia
If the court finds a plan of restitution unworkable, the court shall state on the record in detail the reasons therefor. Conduct and offenses giving rise to forfeiture under this act, whether or not there is a prosecution or conviction related to the offense, are:. Financial loss may include any costs incurred by the victim in correcting the credit history of the victim or any costs incurred in connection with any civil or administrative proceeding to satisfy any debt or other obligation of such victim, including lost wages and attorney's fees.
Any second or subsequent conviction under this subdivision is a Class II felony. Any second or subsequent conviction under this subdivision is a Class III felony. Any second or subsequent conviction under this subdivision is a Class IV felony. Any second conviction under this subdivision is a Class I misdemeanor, and any third or subsequent conviction under this subdivision is a Class IV felony. Any second conviction under this subdivision is a Class III felony, and any third or subsequent conviction under this subdivision is a Class II felony.
An individual is guilty of an offense if the individual uses or attempts to use any personal identifying information of another individual, living or deceased, to obtain credit, money, goods, services, or anything else of value without the authorization or consent of the other individual.
A second or subsequent offense is a class A. Heather Morton is a program principal in Fiscal Affairs. Upon conviction for any crime in this article, in addition to any other punishment, a person found guilty shall be ordered by the court to make restitution for financial loss caused by the criminal violation of this article to any person whose identifying information was appropriated. Financial loss may include any costs incurred by the victim in correcting the credit history or credit rating of the victim or any costs incurred in connection with any civil or administrative proceeding to satisfy any debt, lien, or other obligations resulting from the theft of the victim's identification documents or identifying information, including lost wages and attorney's fees.
The court may order restitution for financial loss to any other person or entity that suffers a loss from the violation. Dealing in false identification documents is a Class C felony. Vital records identity fraud is a Class C felony. Financial identity fraud is a Class C felony Financial identify fraud is a Class B felony if the victim is an elder person or a disabled person. Non-financial identity fraud is a Class D felony.
Non-financial identity fraud is a Class C felony if the victim is an elder person or a disabled person.
Arizona Revised Statutes
Punishable in the same manner and to the same extent as for larceny of the money or property so received. Every person who, with the intent to defraud, acquires, transfers, or retains possession of the personal identifying information of another person is guilty of a public offense, and upon conviction therefor, shall be punished by a fine, by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or both a fine and imprisonment.
Every person who, with the intent to defraud, acquires or retains possession of the personal identifying information of another person, and who has previously been convicted of a violation of this section upon conviction therefor shall be punished by a fine, by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both a fine and imprisonment, or by imprisonment in the state prison. Every person who, with the intent to defraud, acquires or retains possession of the personal identifying information of 10 or more other persons is guilty of a public offense, and upon conviction therefor, shall be punished by a fine, by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both a fine and imprisonment, or by imprisonment in the state prison.
Every person who, with the intent to defraud, sells, transfers, or conveys the personal identifying information of another person is guilty of a public offense, and upon conviction therefor, shall be punished by a fine, by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both a fine and imprisonment, or by imprisonment in the state prison. Every person who, with actual knowledge that the personal identifying information, of a specific person will be used to commit a violation of subdivision a , sells, transfers, or conveys that same personal identifying information is guilty of a public offense, and upon conviction therefor, shall be punished by a fine, by imprisonment in the state prison, or by both fine and imprisonment.
Code, is guilty of a public offense, and upon conviction therefor shall be punished by a fine, by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both a fine and imprisonment. Prosecution under this subdivision shall not limit or preclude prosecution under any other provision of law, including, but not limited to subdivisions a to c , inclusive, of this section.
Class 4 felony The court shall be required to sentence the defendant to the department of corrections for a term of at least the minimum of the presumptive range and may sentence the defendant to a maximum of twice the presumptive range if: a The defendant is convicted of identity theft or of attempt, conspiracy, or solicitation to commit identity theft; and b The defendant has a prior conviction for a violation of this part 9 or a prior conviction for an offense committed in any other state, the United States, or any other territory subject to the jurisdiction of the United States that would constitute a violation of this part 9 if committed in this state, or for attempt, conspiracy, or solicitation to commit a violation of this part 9 or for attempt, conspiracy, or solicitation to commit an offense in another jurisdiction that would constitute a violation of this part 9 if committed in this state.
Criminal possession of one financial device is a class 1 misdemeanor Criminal possession of two or more financial devices is a class 6 felony. Criminal possession of four or more financial devices, of which at least two are issued to different account holders, is a class 5 felony. Criminal possession of two or more identification documents, of which at least two are issued to different persons, is a class 6 felony. When a person is convicted of or pleads guilty to identity theft, the sentencing judge shall order full restitution for monetary loss, including documented loss of wages and reasonable attorney fees, suffered by the victim.
Code Ann. It is an affirmative defense that the accused: 1 Reasonably believed that the victim was not 65 years of age or older at the time of the offense; or 2 Could not have determined the age of the victim because of the manner in which the offense was committed.
Administrative Histories P-R
When a person is convicted of identity theft, the court may, in addition to any other applicable penalty, order restitution for the full amount of financial injury. Any person who willfully and without authorization fraudulently uses personal identification information concerning an individual who is less than 18 years of age without first obtaining the consent of that individual or of his or her legal guardian commits a felony of the second degree. Any person who is in the relationship of parent or legal guardian, or who otherwise exercises custodial authority over an individual who is less than 18 years of age, who willfully and fraudulently uses personal identification information of that individual commits a felony of the second degree.
Any person who willfully and fraudulently uses, or possesses with intent to fraudulently use, personal identification information concerning a deceased individual commits the offense of fraudulent use or possession with intent to use personal identification information of a deceased individual, a felony of the third degree.
Any person convicted of a violation of this Code section shall be punished by imprisonment or community service, by a fine, or by both such punishments not to exceed the maximum punishment prescribed for the offense the commission of which was the object of the attempt or conspiracy.
Any person found guilty of a violation of this article may be ordered by the court to make restitution to any consumer victim or any business victim of such fraud. A person found guilty of violating any provisions of this section shall, in addition to any other punishment, be ordered to make restitution for financial loss sustained by a victim as a result of such violation. Notes: Alternative link at the Wayback Machine.
Notes: Alternative link at Wayback Machine. Notes: Alternative link. Museum Disposition of Property Act. Museum Unclaimed Property Act. Museum Loan Act. Citation Nebraska Revised Statutes, Section to Museum Property Act. Abandoned Cultural Properties Act. Citation Ohio Revised Code, Chapter Citation Code of Virginia, Title 55, Chapter About Archives What Are Archives? Notes: Apparently applies only to museums in the state system of museums. One theory explaining the impetus behind the bill was that ALEC is largely funded by contributions of corporate members and among those members are several companies in the private prisons industry, such as the Corrections Corporation of America , Management and Training Corporation , and GEO Group , and that these companies stood to benefit by a large increase in the number of illegal aliens being sent to jail.
The proposed bill reached the Arizona legislature in January and gained 36 cosponsors. This incident gave a tangible public face to fears about immigration-related crime. The resulting speculation that the killer was an illegal alien increased support among the public for the measure.
The bill, with a number of changes made to it, passed the Arizona House of Representatives on April 13 by a 35—21 party-line vote. Once a bill passes, the governor has five days to make a decision to sign, veto, or let it pass unsigned. During the time of the signing, there were over a thousand people at the Arizona State Capitol both in support of and opposition to the bill, and some minor civil unrest occurred.
Sponsor Pearce called the bill's signing "a good day for America. State Representative Michele Reagan reflected three months later: "The majority of us who voted yes on that bill, myself included, did not expect or encourage an outcry from the public. The majority of us just voted for it because we thought we could try to fix the problem.
Nobody envisioned boycotts. Nobody anticipated the emotion, the prayer vigils. The attitude was: These are the laws, let's start following them. No one. The immigration issue also gained center stage in the re-election campaign of Republican U. Senator from Arizona John McCain , who had been a past champion of federal immigration reform measures such as the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of In September , U.
District Judge Susan Bolton ordered the primary sponsor of Arizona's immigration law to comply with a subpoena calling for him to turn over his emails and documents about the contentious statute. Challengers of the bill want to determine from these whether there was a discriminatory intent in composing the statute. In the United States, supporters and opponents of the bill have roughly followed party lines, with most Democrats opposing the bill and most Republicans supporting it. The bill was criticized by President Barack Obama who called it "misguided" and said it would "undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and our communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe.
Secretary of Homeland Security and former Arizona governor Janet Napolitano testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that she had "deep concerns" about the law and that it would divert necessary law enforcement resources from combating violent criminals. Attorney General Eric Holder said the federal government was considering several options, including a court challenge based on the law leading to possible civil rights violations.
Senator Chuck Schumer of New York and Mayor of New York City Michael Bloomberg have criticized the law, with Bloomberg stating that it sends exactly the wrong message to international companies and travelers. In testimony before the Senate Homeland Security Committee , McCain drew out that Napolitano had made her remarks before having actually read the law.
Representative from California's 39th congressional district , has claimed that white supremacy groups are in part to blame for the law's passage, saying, "There's a concerted effort behind promoting these kinds of laws on a state-by-state basis by people who have ties to white supremacy groups. It's been documented.
It's not mainstream politics. The law has been popular among the Republican Party base electorate; however, several Republicans have opposed aspects of the measure, mostly from those who have represented heavily Hispanic states. Senate candidate Marco Rubio ,  and former George W. Bush chief political strategist Karl Rove. One Arizona Democrat who defended some of the motivation behind the bill was Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords , who said her constituents were "sick and tired" of the federal government failing to protect the border, that the current situation was "completely unacceptable", and that the legislation was a "clear calling that the federal government needs to do a better job".
In response to these comments, Chris Hawley of USA Today said that "Mexico has a law that is no different from Arizona's", referring to legislation which gives local police forces the power to check documents of people suspected of being in the country illegally. The law imperiled the 28th annual, binational Border Governors Conference , scheduled to be held in Phoenix in September and to be hosted by Governor Brewer.
Arizona's law enforcement groups have been split on the bill,   with statewide rank-and-file police officer groups generally supporting it and police chief associations opposing it. The Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police criticized the legislation, calling the provisions of the bill "problematic" and expressing that it will negatively affect the ability of law enforcement agencies across the state to fulfill their many responsibilities in a timely manner.
The measure was hailed by Joe Arpaio , Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona — known for his tough crackdowns on illegal immigration within his own jurisdiction — who hoped the measure would cause the federal action to seal the border. Activists within the church were present on both sides of the immigration debate,  and both proponents and opponents of the law appealed to religious arguments for support. State Senator Pearce, a devout member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints LDS Church which has a substantial population in Arizona, frequently said that his efforts to push forward this legislation was based on that church's 13 Articles of Faith , one of which instructs in obeying the law.
The Church supports an approach where illegal immigrants are allowed to square themselves with the law and continue to work without this necessarily leading to citizenship. The U. Conference of Catholic Bishops denounced the law, characterizing it as draconian and saying it "could lead to the wrongful questioning and arrest of U. Other members of the Christian clergy differed on the law. The National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials said the legislation was "an unconstitutional and costly measure that will violate the civil rights of all Arizonans.
Deputy Solicitor General, also criticized the legislation for its potential infringement on the civil liberties of Arizona's citizens and lawful permanent residents. Proponents with the law have rejected such criticism, and argued that the law was reasonable, limited, and carefully crafted. Bush administration , said, "The coverage of this law and the text of the law are a little hard to square. There's nothing in the law that requires cities to stop people without cause, or encourages racial or ethnic profiling by itself.
Republican member with the Arizona House of Representatives Steve Montenegro supported the law, saying that "This bill has nothing to do with race or profiling. It has to do with the law. We are seeing a lot of crime here in Arizona because of the open borders that we have. As one of the main drafters of the law, Kobach has stated that the way the law has been written makes any form of racial profiling illegal.
In particular, Kobach references the phrase in the law that directly states that officers "may not solely consider race, color, or national origin. However, there are ongoing arguments in legal journal articles that racial profiling does exist and threatens human security , particularly community security of the Mexicans living in the United States. India Williams argues that the Border Patrol is very likely to stop anyone if a suspect resembles "Mexican appearance" and states that such generalization of unchangeable physical features threatens the culture and the heritage of the ethnic group.
It states: "A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution. In United States v. Brignoni-Ponce , the U. Supreme Court found: "The likelihood that any given person of Mexican ancestry is an alien is high enough to make Mexican appearance a relevant factor.
Thousands of people staged protests in state capital Phoenix over the law around the time of its signing, and a pro-immigrant activist called the measure "racist". Tens of thousands of people demonstrated against the law in over 70 U. Don't deport my mama. Protests both for and against the Act took place over Memorial Day Weekend in Phoenix and commanded thousands of people. Protests against the law extended to the arts and sports world as well. Colombian pop singer Shakira came to Phoenix and gave a joint press conference against the bill with Mayor of Phoenix Phil Gordon.
Major organizations opposing the law, such as the National Council of La Raza , refrained from initially supporting a boycott, knowing that such actions are difficult to execute successfully and even if done cause broad economic suffering, including among the people they are supporting. Day state holiday and a subsequent failed initial referendum to restore it.
The Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce opposed both the law and the idea of boycotting, saying the latter would only hurt small businesses and the state's economy, which was already badly damaged by the collapse of real estate prices and the lates recession. That's something that private citizens can make a decision about. Sports-related boycotts were proposed as well. A boycott by musicians saying they would not stage performances in Arizona was co-founded by Marco Amador, a Chicano activist and independent media advocate and Zack de la Rocha , the lead singer of Rage Against the Machine and the son of Beto de la Rocha of Chicano art group Los Four , who said, "Some of us grew up dealing with racial profiling, but this law SB takes it to a whole new low.
I have read that some of the artists won't come here. They are fuckwits! Let's face it: I still play in California, and as a gay man I have no legal rights whatsoever. So what's the fuck up with these people? Immigration and Customs Enforcement policies. In reaction to the boycott talk, proponents of the law advocated making a special effort to buy products and services from Arizona in order to indicate support for the law. The weeks after the bill's signing saw a sharp increase in the number of Hispanics in the state registering their party affiliations as Democrats. Some immigration experts said the law might make workers with H-1B visas vulnerable to being caught in public without their hard-to-replace paperwork, which they are ordinarily reluctant to carry with them on a daily basis, and that as a consequence universities and technology companies in the state might find it harder to recruit students and employees.
Shelton of the University of Arizona expressed concern regarding the withdrawal of a number of honor roll students from the university in reaction to this bill. Some women with questionable immigration status avoided domestic abuse hotlines and shelters for fear of deportation.
- How to Build an Automatic Grow Cabinet for Under $500: The Complete Do-It-Yourself Guide for Building a Totally Automatic Indoor Grow Cabinet!
- Arizona Revised Statutes!
- Arizona Revised Statutes Title 38 - Public Officers And Employees - Legal Research.
A study found that the legislation "significantly reduced the flow of illegal workers into Arizona from Mexico by 30 to 70 percent. The Arizona legislation was one of several reasons pushing Democratic congressional leaders to introduce a proposal addressing immigration. By March , Arizona-like bills had been defeated or had failed to progress in at least six states and momentum had shifted against such imitative efforts. Even in Arizona itself, additional tough measures against illegal immigration were having a difficult time gaining passage in the Arizona Senate.
But he then suffered a startling defeat when he lost a November recall election. Drafter of the law Kris Kobach won election as Secretary of State of Kansas , first defeating two other candidates in a Republican primary,  then winning the general election against Democratic incumbent Chris Biggs by a wide margin. Sheriff Joe Arpaio was among those who campaigned for Kobach.
State Attorney General Goddard did get the Democratic nomination in the Arizona gubernatorial election. Governor Jan Brewer went on to defeat him by a 54 to 42 percent margin in the November general election. A study found that the up-tick in Brewer's approval ratings due to the legislation "proved enduring enough to turn a losing race for re-election into a victory".
According to Kobach, the law embodies the doctrine of "concurrent enforcement" the state law parallels applicable federal law without any conflict ,   and Kobach stated that he believed that it would thus survive any challenge: "There are some things that states can do and some that states can't do, but this law threads the needle perfectly Arizona only penalizes what is already a crime under federal law. City of Peoria 9th Cir. The US Attorney General may enter a written agreement with a state or local government agency under which that agency's employees perform the function of an immigration officer in relation to the investigation, apprehension, or detention of aliens in the United States;  however, such an agreement is not required for the agency's employees to perform those functions.
On the other hand, various legal experts were divided on whether the law would survive a court challenge, with one law professor saying it "sits right on that thin line of pure state criminal law and federally controlled immigration law. A Phoenix police officer, David Salgado, quickly followed with his own federal suit, claiming that to enforce the law would require him to violate the rights of Hispanics.
On May 5, Tucson and Flagstaff became the first two cities to authorize legal action against the state over the Act. On May 17, a joint class action lawsuit , Friendly House et al. Whiting , was filed in U. District Court on behalf of ten individuals and fourteen labor, religious, and civil rights organizations. This suit named County's Attorney and Sheriffs as defendants, rather than the State of Arizona or Governor Brewer, as the earlier suits had.
Kobach remained optimistic that the suits would fail: "I think it will be difficult for the plaintiffs challenging this.
Agencies by Title
They are heavy on political rhetoric but light on legal arguments. District Court for the District of Arizona on July 6, , asking for the law to be declared invalid since it interferes with the immigration regulations "exclusively vested in the federal government. A direct suit of a state by the federal government is rare, and the action held possible political consequences for the U.
Hearings on three of the seven lawsuits were held on July 15 and 22, , before U. District Judge Susan Bolton. Judge Bolton's ruling let a number of other aspects of the law take effect on July 29, including the ability to prevent state officials from maintaining " sanctuary city " policies and allowing civil suits against those policies, the mandating that state officials work with federal officials on matters related to illegal immigration, and the prohibition of stopping a vehicle in traffic to pick up day laborers.