Trafficking in Stolen Property in Arizona | ARS 13-2307

Trafficking in stolen property, under Arizona law (ARS 13-2307), generally refers to the buying, selling, or transferring of goods that are known to be stolen. 

This offense encompasses actions taken with reckless or knowing intent, ranging from handling stolen items to leading a network that manages the theft and resale of property. Arizona law divides this offense into two levels: second-degree and first-degree trafficking, based on the degree of involvement and awareness.

In simple terms, trafficking in stolen property means knowingly dealing with stolen items, whether by directly trading in them or by supporting their sale through an organized scheme.

Under ARS 13-2307, Arizona law differentiates between first- and second-degree trafficking in stolen property based on the defendant’s level of involvement and intent. These distinctions impact both the severity of the charges and the penalties that may apply.

• Second-Degree Trafficking: A person is guilty of trafficking in stolen property in the second degree if they recklessly traffic in property they know to be stolen. This offense is classified as a Class 3 felony, indicating it is a serious crime, though less severe than first-degree trafficking. 
• The term recklessly here means that the individual may not have planned or managed the initial theft but chose to engage in the transaction without regard for whether the property was stolen. 
• Examples could include purchasing an item from an unverified source or reselling a suspiciously underpriced good.

• First-Degree Trafficking: In contrast, first-degree trafficking involves a higher level of intent and organization. A person is guilty of first-degree trafficking if they knowingly initiate, organize, plan, finance, direct, manage, or supervise the theft and trafficking of stolen property.
•  This offense is classified as a Class 2 felony, carrying harsher penalties because of the deliberate and extensive involvement in orchestrating the crime.
•  First-degree trafficking charges often apply to individuals who act as the central figure in stolen property schemes, taking active roles in directing the theft and ensuring the stolen goods reach a buyer.

The primary difference between the two degrees lies in the individual’s role and intent: second-degree trafficking targets those involved at a lower level, while first-degree trafficking applies to those who lead or organize the illegal activity. The classification as a Class 2 or Class 3 felony determines sentencing, with first-degree trafficking potentially leading to longer prison terms and higher fines.

Penalties for trafficking in stolen property in Arizona vary depending on whether the charge is first- or second-degree under ARS 13-2307. These penalties are serious and increase with the level of involvement in the crime.

• First-Degree Trafficking (Class 2 Felony)
  If convicted of first-degree trafficking, a Class 2 felony, individuals face some of the harshest penalties. This level of trafficking applies to those who organize or manage the theft and resale of stolen property. Sentencing ranges from 3 to 12.5 years in prison, depending on prior criminal convictions and the specific details of the case. Courts may also order significant fines and, in some cases, restitution to compensate victims. Due to the serious nature of a Class 2 felony, probation is possible but less common for these cases.

• Second-Degree Trafficking (Class 3 Felony)
  Second-degree trafficking, a Class 3 felony, has less severe penalties but still includes serious consequences. Sentences for second-degree trafficking can range from 2 to 8.75 years in prison and may include fines. Probation may be more likely with second-degree trafficking than with first-degree but is still not guaranteed. This charge is generally used for those who participate in the handling of stolen property without actively managing the operation.

• Additional Factors
  Arizona law considers any aggravating or mitigating factors in each case, which can affect sentencing. For example, a repeat offender may face increased penalties, while a first-time offender may have a chance for reduced sentencing. Both first- and second-degree convictions often come with restitution requirements, meaning the convicted person must compensate the property owner for any damages.

Facing a trafficking in stolen property charge can lead to severe penalties and long-term impacts on one’s life. Working with an experienced attorney, like Christian Lueders at Guardian Law, can make a significant difference in exploring options to reduce or challenge these penalties.

Defending against trafficking in stolen property charges requires a strategy that addresses the key elements of both first- and second-degree trafficking under ARS 13-2307. Effective defenses often focus on disproving the intent or involvement required for each charge. Here are some commonly used defenses in trafficking cases:

• Lack of Knowledge: For both first- and second-degree trafficking, the prosecution must prove that the defendant knowingly handled stolen property. A strong defense might argue that the defendant was unaware the property was stolen. For example, the defendant may have purchased an item without knowing its origin or believed it was legally acquired. If the defense can raise reasonable doubt about the defendant’s knowledge, it could lead to a dismissal or reduction of the charges.

• No Intent to Organize or Manage: First-degree trafficking requires proof that the defendant knowingly organized, financed, or managed the trafficking operation. A defense attorney may argue that the defendant was not involved at this level and did not oversee or control any part of the scheme. Showing that the defendant was a passive participant, rather than an active organizer, may help reduce a first-degree charge to a lesser offense.

• Lack of Recklessness: Second-degree trafficking involves a “reckless” standard, meaning the defendant was careless in handling property that could be stolen. The defense might argue that the defendant took reasonable steps to verify the legality of the property, such as checking sources or obtaining proof of purchase. By demonstrating due diligence, the defense can argue that the defendant did not act recklessly, which could weaken the second-degree trafficking charge.

• Insufficient Evidence: In any criminal case, the prosecution bears the burden of proof. Defense attorneys often scrutinize the evidence to identify weaknesses, such as lack of witnesses, unclear documentation, or unreliable testimony. If evidence fails to directly link the defendant to the trafficking operation or proves ambiguous, the defense may move to dismiss the charges or push for reduced penalties.

• Mistaken Identity: In complex trafficking cases, especially those involving multiple individuals, mistaken identity can be a valid defense. A person may be wrongly accused if they were unknowingly associated with others involved in trafficking stolen property. By establishing an alibi or lack of connection to the operation, the defense can demonstrate that the defendant was not involved in the offense.

Each of these defenses aims to challenge the elements of trafficking in stolen property, either by casting doubt on the defendant’s knowledge, disproving reckless conduct, or disputing direct involvement in the scheme.

Working with an experienced attorney, like Christian Lueders at Guardian Law, can help clients build a solid defense against trafficking charges and explore options for dismissal or reduced charges.

At Guardian Law, Christian Lueders brings a wealth of experience to the defense table, shaped by his time as both a felony prosecutor and a dedicated criminal defense attorney. Christian has spent years working on complex property crime cases like trafficking under ARS 13-2307, giving him unique insight into how these cases unfold from start to finish.

Because of his background as a former prosecutor, Christian understands how the other side builds a case, and he uses this knowledge to find weaknesses and identify effective defenses for his clients. From challenging the prosecution’s evidence to demonstrating a lack of intent or recklessness, Christian is skilled at crafting defenses tailored to each client’s unique situation.

When you choose Guardian Law, you’re not just hiring an attorney; you’re gaining an advocate who’s fully invested in protecting your rights and your future. If you’re ready to take the next step, reach out to Christian Lueders at Guardian Law—he’s here to discuss your options and work with you every step of the way.