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 Attorneys Office, Kingman, By Megan McCoy, Jacob
Cote, Counsel for Real Party in Interest
Pima
County Public Defenders Office, Tucson, By David J. Euchner,
Counsel for Amicus Curiae Arizona Attorneys for Criminal
Justice
Coconino County Public Defenders Office, Flagstaff, By
Sandra L.J. Diehl, Counsel for Amicus Curiae Arizona Public
Defender Association
Arizona Attorney Generals 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 courts 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 ...