Arizona's SB 1723 amends Arizona Revised Statutes sections 13-3602 and 13-3967 to strengthen domestic violence protection orders. It requires verified petitions (with no filing fees) and mandates courts to keep victims' contact information confidential. The bill adds a key provision: if a victim granted exclusive residence use under an order moves out, they must notify the court in writing within five days, triggering a notice to the defendant about their right to request a hearing. This directly affects domestic violence victims and alleged abusers by clarifying release conditions and residence rights.
HB 2995 modifies Arizona's domestic relations law to prioritize child safety in custody cases involving domestic violence. It creates a rebuttable presumption against granting joint legal decision-making or parenting time to a parent found to have committed domestic violence, requiring courts to consider evidence like police reports, medical records, and shelter documentation. If a parent is found abusive, they must prove parenting time won't endanger the child, and courts can impose conditions such as supervised visits, mandatory counseling, or restrictions on overnight stays. The bill also mandates detailed court findings explaining how domestic violence considerations serve the child's best interests, with the presumption taking priority over other legal standards.
HB 4117 makes it a class 1 misdemeanor to knowingly disturb religious services through indecent behavior, profane language, or unnecessary noise near the worship space. It directly affects individuals who disrupt the order and solemnity of religious gatherings, whether inside the venue or nearby. The law specifically targets actions that disturb the "assemblage of persons who have met for religious worship," not general public conduct. This bill, which passed the Arizona House on February 26, 2026, creates a new criminal penalty for such disruptions.
SB 1669 restricts the use of a sexual assault victim's past sexual history as evidence in court, generally barring reputation or opinion evidence about their chastity. It allows limited exceptions only for evidence about the victim's past sexual conduct with the defendant, specific instances showing the source of physical evidence (like semen or pregnancy), evidence supporting a motive for false accusations, impeachment of the victim, or prior false allegations against others. Before any such evidence can be presented, a judge must hold a pretrial hearing and determine admissibility using the "clear and convincing evidence" standard. This law directly affects criminal trials for sexual offenses under Arizona statutes (including sections 13-1421, 13-3212, and chapter 35), aiming to limit prejudicial questioning of victims.
This bill allows judges to impose lighter prison sentences or probation instead of mandatory prison terms for certain defendants with mental health conditions linked to military service or first responder work. It requires judges to find that imposing the mandatory sentence would cause injustice, isn't needed for public safety, and the condition relates to the defendant's military or first responder role. The law excludes cases involving death, serious injury, domestic violence, or ongoing criminal activity. Judges must state their reasoning on the record when deviating from mandatory sentences.
SB 1662 (Arizona Revised Statutes §13-901) requires courts to impose probation conditions that are "reasonably necessary" for public safety, rehabilitation, and helping defendants live lawfully - using validated risk assessments to tailor requirements to individual needs. It mandates probation officers to waive unnecessary standard conditions and justify any special condition as the least restrictive option needed to meet these goals. The bill also establishes a $65 monthly probation fee (waivable for indigent individuals) to fund adult probation services, with fees directed to county probation funds. These changes directly affect individuals on probation in Arizona courts by standardizing how conditions are set and funded.
HB 4056 amends Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-116 to clarify that when an act violates multiple laws, sentences must run concurrently (served at the same time), not consecutively. It also states that a conviction or acquittal under one law bars prosecution for the same act under another law, aligning with constitutional protections against double jeopardy. This technical correction directly affects criminal defendants in Arizona who face charges under multiple statutes for the same conduct. The bill passed the Arizona House of Representatives on March 3, 2026, and was referred to the Senate.
HB 2226 requires courts to ask arrestees at their first court hearing if they are U.S. military veterans. If confirmed (via documents like a DD-214), prosecutors must inform veterans about veterans' services and refer them to veterans' courts or treatment programs - unless the person faces serious charges like violent crimes or crimes against children. The bill directly affects veterans arrested for non-serious offenses, creating a pathway to specialized support instead of standard criminal proceedings. It does not change existing criminal penalties but adds a procedural step for veterans' case processing.
HB 2265 prevents courts in Arizona from charging indigent defendants (low-income individuals) fees or requiring repayment for public defender services. It specifically bans administrative assessments of up to $25 and prohibits courts from ordering repayment for legal costs, including in juvenile or mental health proceedings. The bill also establishes new court filing fees for a "fair jury improvement fund" (excluding criminal trial filings), with fees collected to supplement, not replace, existing county funding for public defense. These changes directly affect individuals qualifying for court-appointed counsel under Arizona law.
HB 2404 allows courts, mental health agencies, or authorized individuals to request non-police "authorized transporters" (trained staff) to safely transport individuals needing mental health evaluation, instead of using police officers. This applies when there are reasonable grounds to believe the transport can occur without police assistance, and it provides legal immunity from civil liability for all involved parties (except in cases of gross negligence). The bill does not require cities or counties to use authorized transporters instead of police, but if they contract with them, the local government pays for the service. It directly affects mental health evaluation agencies, courts, authorized transporters, and individuals receiving involuntary mental health evaluations.
