Hiskett v. Lambert

Page 409

          Petition for Special Action from the Superior Court in Mohave County, No. CR-2018-01854, The Honorable Richard D. Lambert, Judge

         JURISDICTION ACCEPTED; RELIEF GRANTED IN PART

         American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Arizona, Phoenix, By Jared G. Keenan, Kathleen E. Brody, Marty Lieberman, Co-Counsel for Petitioner

          Aspen, Watkins & Diesel, P.L.L.C., Flagstaff, By Michael J. Wozniak, Co-Counsel for Petitioner

          Mohave County Attorney’s Office, Kingman, By Megan McCoy, Jacob Cote, Counsel for Real Party in Interest

          Pima County Public Defender’s Office, Tucson, By David J. Euchner, Counsel for Amicus Curiae Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice

          Coconino County Public Defender’s Office, Flagstaff, By Sandra L.J. Diehl, Counsel for Amicus Curiae Arizona Public Defender Association

          Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix, By Rusty D. Crandell, Anthony R. Napolitano, Counsel for Amicus Curiae Arizona Attorney General

         Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Paul J. McMurdie and Chief Judge Peter B. Swann joined.

          OPINION

         WINTHROP, Judge:

         [¶1] Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") section 13-3967(E)(1) mandates that persons charged with certain bailable sex offenses be subject to electronic monitoring "where available." In this special action, we address a question raised but not directly answered by § 13-3967(E)(1): Must the defendant pay the cost of that pretrial electronic monitoring? We answer that question in the negative, and we also address other issues raised by the parties.

Page 410

         [¶2] Robert Louis Hiskett ("Petitioner"), whose criminal charges trigger the application of A.R.S. § 13-3967(E)(1), challenges the superior court’s pretrial release orders requiring him to pay for electronic location monitoring and later requiring him to post bond in the amount of $100,000 or be jailed pending trial. Petitioner argues the cost of pretrial electronic location monitoring must not be imposed on pretrial defendants. He also argues the superior court failed to properly determine whether such monitoring was "available" under § 13-3967(E)(1) and failed to conduct the proper inquiry regarding the bond. For the following reasons, we accept special action jurisdiction, grant relief in part, and direct the superior court to conduct further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

          FACTS AND ...