Haag v. Steinle
255 P.3d 1016
Ariz. Ct. App.2011Background
- Haag, a Buffalo, New York resident, is charged in Maricopa County with bailable offenses involving sexual exploitation of a minor.
- Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-3967(E)(1) requires electronic monitoring 'where available' as a condition of release for certain offenses.
- Maricopa County cannot monitor out-of-state defendants, and Erie County, New York, does not use electronic monitoring.
- The superior court concluded Haag could not be released to Buffalo because monitoring is unavailable there, and ordered release with Maricopa County electronic monitoring.
- Haag sought special action relief arguing the statute allows release to his home absent monitoring; the court granted jurisdiction and remanded for reconsideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does 'where available' mean monitoring must be available where the defendant will reside on release? | Haag | State | Ambiguity; statute interpreted de novo to allow release possibility to Buffalo |
| May the superior court release Haag to Buffalo without electronic monitoring if monitoring is unavailable there? | Haag | State | Yes, subject to court discretion on case-by-case basis |
| Does legislative history support interpreting § 13-3967(E)(1) as not forcing in-state monitoring only? | Haag | State | Legislative history shows 'where available' accommodates counties without monitoring; not restricted to in-state monitoring |
Key Cases Cited
- Nataros v. Superior Court, 113 Ariz. 498 (App. 1976) (special action jurisdiction; extraordinary relief considerations)
- Romley v. Superior Court, 172 Ariz. 109 (App. 1992) (statewide importance; plain, speedy, adequate remedy by appeal)
- Hayes v. Cont'l Ins. Co., 178 Ariz. 264 (1994) (statutory interpretation with context and legislative history)
- State v. Kearney, 206 Ariz. 547 (App. 2003) (de novo review of statutory interpretation)
- City of Tempe v. Fleming, 168 Ariz. 454 (App. 1991) (avoid reading into statutes beyond manifest intent)
- State v. Clary, 196 Ariz. 610 (App. 2000) (legislative policy considerations in statutory interpretation)
- Creamer v. Raffety, 145 Ariz. 34 (App. 1984) (due process and equal protection in release procedures)