A drug charge in Maricopa County is rarely as simple as the police report makes it sound. The same handful of pills can be a class 4 felony or a class 2 felony depending on a single word in the charging document. The same amount of powder can mean probation is available or prison is mandatory depending on which paragraph of the statute you are convicted under. And a great deal of what is written about Arizona drug law online — including on other law firm websites — is either out of date or simply wrong.
This page explains what Arizona law actually says, what the numbers actually do, and where the common explanations get it backwards.
Almost every discussion of Arizona drug law mentions “threshold amounts” and describes them as the point at which the State gets to assume you were selling. That is not what the statute does.
The words presumption, presumed, and prima facie do not appear anywhere in A.R.S. § 13-3401, § 13-3407, or § 13-3408. The threshold amount creates no evidentiary shortcut for the prosecution. It does not convert a possession case into a sales case. The State still has to prove intent to sell the same way it would in any other case, with evidence.
What the threshold actually does is take away the judge’s power to give you probation — and it only does that after a conviction, and only for certain charges.
Read § 13-3407(D) and § 13-3408(D) closely. Each says that if the aggregate amount “equals or exceeds the statutory threshold amount, a person who is convicted of a violation of subsection A, paragraph 2, 5 or 7 of this section is not eligible for suspension of sentence, probation, pardon or release from confinement” until the sentence is served. Paragraph 2 is possession for sale. Paragraph 5 is administering the drug to another person. Paragraph 7 is transport for sale, importation, sale or transfer.
Three consequences follow, and they matter enormously to how a case should be handled:
The threshold cannot operate until the jury has already found intent to sell. The rule is triggered by the conviction, not by the quantity in the evidence locker. A rule that only applies after intent to sell is proven cannot logically be the thing that proves intent to sell.
Below the threshold, probation remains legally available even on a sales charge. A possession-for-sale conviction under the threshold amount is not automatically a prison case. That is often the single most valuable fact in the file.
At or above the threshold on one of those paragraphs, the judge loses discretion entirely. Not “is unlikely to grant probation.” Cannot. This is why the weight matters so much, and why the way the State aggregates and weighs the substance is worth fighting over — independent lab testing, chain of custody, and how mixtures were weighed are all live issues.
The marijuana version of the same rule is at § 13-3405(C).
Arizona sorts controlled substances into categories, and the category determines the exposure. Two people caught with the same conduct and different substances are not in the same position.
Dangerous drugs — A.R.S. § 13-3407. Defined at § 13-3401(6). This is where methamphetamine, amphetamine, LSD, MDMA, PCP, and many prescription depressants such as alprazolam and clonazepam land. Simple possession or use is a class 4 felony. Possession for sale, manufacturing, administering, and transport for sale are class 2 felonies. Possession of equipment or chemicals for manufacturing is a class 3 felony, or a class 2 if methamphetamine is involved.
Narcotic drugs — A.R.S. § 13-3408. Defined at § 13-3401(20). Heroin, fentanyl, oxycodone, hydrocodone, and morphine are here. Cocaine reaches this statute indirectly: § 13-3401(20) lists “coca leaves,” and § 13-3401(5) defines coca leaves to include cocaine and its salts, derivatives, mixtures and preparations. The class structure mirrors § 13-3407 — class 4 for possession, class 2 for sale-type conduct.
Marijuana — A.R.S. § 13-3405. Still on the books, but now subordinate to Proposition 207. Subsection (A) opens with “Except as provided in sections 36-2852 and 36-2853,” which means the criminal statute applies only to conduct Prop 207 did not legalize. Classification is by weight and by conduct, from a class 6 felony for possessing under two pounds up to a class 2 felony for transporting two pounds or more for sale. There is a drafting quirk worth knowing: the possession tiers read “less than four” and “four pounds or more,” while the sale and production tiers read “not more than four” and “more than four.” Exactly four pounds falls into different tiers depending on the offense charged.
Section 13-3407(B)(1) contains a path that § 13-3408 does not have. For simple possession of a dangerous drug, the court — on motion of the State — may enter judgment for a class 1 misdemeanor instead of a class 4 felony, or may place the defendant on probation without designating the offense at all until probation ends successfully.
Two limits are easy to miss. The judge cannot do this on a defense request alone; it requires the prosecutor to move. And it is unavailable if the drug is LSD, methamphetamine, amphetamine or PCP, or if the person has a prior felony or a prior violation of § 13-3407 or § 13-3408.
Section 13-3408 has no equivalent provision. Simple possession of a narcotic drug is a flat class 4 felony with no statutory misdemeanor designation option. A client with nine oxycodone pills and a client with nine methamphetamine pills are looking at different doors, and knowing which doors exist is the difference between negotiating from the correct posture and negotiating from the wrong one.
Fentanyl deserves its own section because the law changed recently, is about to change again, and is described incorrectly almost everywhere.
The threshold amount is nine grams. Section 13-3401(36) sets it as “nine grams of fentanyl or fentanyl mimetic substances.” It is expressed by weight only. There is no pill count and no dosage-unit measure anywhere in the statute for fentanyl — LSD is the only listed substance measured in dosage units. Any page that states an Arizona fentanyl threshold “in pills” is stating something the statute does not say.
The weight that counts is the total weight of the mixture containing fentanyl, not the weight of the pure fentanyl in it. In a counterfeit-pill case this is the whole ballgame, because pressed pills are mostly binder and filler. It is also why the way the State weighed and aggregated the evidence is worth examining rather than accepting.
This threshold is newer than most people assume. Before September 2022, fentanyl was not on the threshold list at all. It fell into the catch-all at § 13-3401(36)(k), which requires a value of at least $1,000 — meaning the State had to prove street value. HB 2253, Laws 2022, Chapter 371, approved July 6, 2022, added the nine-gram figure. It took effect in September 2022. Cases involving conduct before that date are governed by the older rule.
There is a separate mandatory-prison tier for large quantities, and its trigger is being cut in half. Section 13-3408(F), added by HB 2245 (the Ashley Dunn Act, Laws 2024, Chapter 66), and § 13-3408(H), added by HB 2607 (Laws 2025, Chapter 85) for fentanyl transported in a motor vehicle, both impose calendar-year prison ranges of 5 / 10 / 15 years, rising to 10 / 15 / 20 with a prior conviction.
The trigger for both has been 200 grams. HB 2132, Laws 2026, Chapter 46, approved April 13, 2026, lowers it to 100 grams effective September 12, 2026. As of today that change has not yet taken effect. Which number applies to a given case depends on when the conduct occurred, and that distinction is going to matter for cases charged over the next several months.
Two bills that would have gone further did not become law and should not be mistaken for current law: HB 2802 (2023), which used a two-milligram single-dose trigger, was vetoed; and SB 1061 (2026), which would have cut the § 13-3408(F) trigger all the way to nine grams, passed both chambers and was vetoed on June 19, 2026.
Arizona voters passed Proposition 200 in 1996, and A.R.S. § 13-901.01 still carries real force. Subsection (A) is unusually direct: “Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, any person who is convicted of the personal possession or use of a controlled substance or drug paraphernalia is eligible for probation. The court shall suspend the imposition or execution of sentence and place the person on probation.”
That is a mandate on the court, not a request. But it has boundaries, and the boundaries are where cases are won and lost.
Subsection (C) excludes possession for sale, production, manufacturing and transportation for sale — so the protection covers personal possession only. Subsection (B) excludes anyone convicted of, or even indicted for, a violent crime as defined in § 13-901.03. Subsection (D) requires drug treatment or education as a condition, at the defendant’s expense based on ability to pay. Subsection (G) allows revocation if the defendant refuses to participate after a reasonable opportunity.
Subsection (H) lists the disqualifiers, and one of them catches people by surprise: § 13-901.01(H)(4) excludes any personal possession or use offense involving methamphetamine. Prop 200’s mandatory probation simply does not apply to a meth possession case. The others are refusing drug treatment as a term of probation, rejecting probation, and a third conviction for personal possession or use. That last one is worded awkwardly in the statute — it reads as though it counts three prior convictions — but the third conviction is the one on which Prop 200 protection ends. At that point the mandatory-probation provision no longer applies and the person is sentenced under Arizona’s general felony sentencing chapter.
Worth noting for what it does not say: § 13-901.01 contains no quantity or threshold exclusion.
People are consistently surprised by this. Under A.R.S. § 13-3415, using or possessing drug paraphernalia with intent to use it is a class 6 felony. So is delivering it, possessing it with intent to deliver, or manufacturing it with intent to deliver. So is advertising it.
Section 13-3415(E) directs the court to consider fourteen enumerated factors in deciding whether an object is paraphernalia at all, and two of them — proximity to drugs and the presence of drug residue — are frequently the entire substance of the State’s case in a roadside stop. Several others exist precisely to protect legitimate retailers: whether the owner is a lawful supplier of like items such as a licensed tobacco dealer, the ratio of sales of the object to total business sales, and the existence and scope of legitimate community uses.
A.R.S. § 13-604 lets a court enter judgment for a class 1 misdemeanor on a class 6 felony conviction that does not involve a dangerous offense, where the court finds that felony sentencing would be “unduly harsh.” It also lets the court leave the offense undesignated during probation. On successful completion, § 13-604(C) says the court shall designate it a misdemeanor.
The provision does not apply to someone who already has two or more prior felony convictions. One prior felony does not disqualify.
Here is the part that gets left out of most explanations, and it is important enough that we will not soften it. While an offense sits undesignated, § 13-604(B) treats it as a felony for seven specific purposes — including the right to possess a firearm, DNA collection under § 13-610, use as a historical prior felony conviction, admissibility for impeachment, and sentence enhancement. An undesignated offense is not simply “a misdemeanor.” Anyone who tells you otherwise is giving you an answer that could get you charged with a new offense.
Proposition 207 legalized possession of up to one ounce by adults 21 and over, with no more than five grams in concentrate form, and up to six plants per adult or twelve per household grown in an enclosed, locked area out of public view. It did not repeal § 13-3405; it subordinated it. Conduct outside those limits remains criminal, and much of what remains criminal is now a petty offense or a misdemeanor under § 36-2853 rather than a felony.
Prop 207 also created expungement at A.R.S. § 36-2862 — a genuinely different and stronger mechanism than sealing or set-aside. Expungement is available for possession, consumption or transportation of two and a half ounces or less (with no more than twelve and a half grams of concentrate), for possessing or cultivating up to six plants at a primary residence for personal use, and for possessing or using paraphernalia relating to marijuana. It applies to arrests, charges, adjudications and convictions, and it reaches conduct occurring before November 30, 2020.
That date is the catch. Marijuana conduct after November 30, 2020 is not expungeable under § 36-2862 no matter how minor. For those cases the route is sealing under § 13-911 or a set-aside under § 13-905, which are separate mechanisms with separate waiting periods and separate effects.
A great deal of outdated information circulates here. TASC — the Treatment Assessment Screening Center — permanently ceased all operations on August 28, 2020. Any page or any advice that routes you to TASC is years out of date.
The current path for most felony drug possession cases is the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office Felony Diversion Program, launched in May 2020 by merging the former Drug Diversion Program and the Felony Pretrial Intervention Program. Its treatment vendor is SAGE Counseling, Inc.
Several features of the program shape defense strategy directly:
It is post-charge, and there is no defendant self-application. A Deputy County Attorney decides eligibility and suitability. That means the advocacy that gets someone into diversion happens with the prosecutor, early, and is often the most consequential work in the entire case — frequently before a single motion is ever filed.
On acceptance, prosecution is suspended for two years. Treatment runs across eight risk-based tracks ranging from roughly ten to fifty sessions. Restitution within the program is capped at $2,000, with half due in thirty days. On successful completion, the Deputy County Attorney files a motion to dismiss the charges with prejudice. On failure, the prosecution is reinstated.
The former $630 program fee was eliminated effective January 1, 2020. Treatment costs are billed by the provider, with AHCCCS coverage and hardship discounts available.
For a first felony offense that is not a dangerous offense, A.R.S. § 13-702 sets the ranges. A class 2 felony carries a presumptive term of five years, with a range running from three years mitigated to twelve and a half years aggravated. A class 3 carries a presumptive of three and a half years. A class 4, two and a half years. A class 6, one year. Reaching the aggravated or mitigated end requires at least two statutory factors under § 13-701.
Section 13-702 governs only the length of a prison term once the court has decided to impose one. It says nothing about whether probation is available — that comes from § 13-901 and from the specific bars discussed above. Probation is generally available for a first-time non-dangerous felony, including a class 2, unless a specific statute takes it away.
The statutes that take it away in drug cases are worth listing plainly: the threshold provisions at §§ 13-3407(D), 13-3408(D) and 13-3405(C); manufacturing a dangerous drug or any methamphetamine sale-type offense under § 13-3407(F); the methamphetamine sentencing table at § 13-3407(E), which imposes 5 / 10 / 15 calendar years and 10 / 15 / 20 with a prior; manufacturing a narcotic drug under § 13-3408(E); the fentanyl quantity tiers at § 13-3408(F) and (H); and the Proposition 200 exclusions at § 13-901.01(B) and (H).
Fines in drug cases are mandatory and cannot be suspended. Section 13-3407(H) sets a floor of $1,000 or three times the value of the drugs, whichever is greater. Section 13-3405(D) sets $750 or three times value for marijuana.
The first questions in any drug file are not about the drugs. They are about the stop, the search, and the seizure. Was there reasonable suspicion for the stop? Did it last longer than the reason that justified it? Was consent given, and was it voluntary, and did the search stay inside the scope of what was consented to? Was there a warrant, and does the affidavit support it? Suppression is not a technicality in a drug case — without the evidence there is frequently no case.
The second set of questions is about the substance and the weight. What was actually tested, by whom, using what method? Was the whole quantity tested or a sample extrapolated? How was a mixture weighed, and was packaging included? Where the case sits near a threshold, the weight is not a background fact — it is the fact that determines whether the judge keeps the power to grant probation.
The third is about who the client is and what the realistic best outcome looks like. Diversion, Proposition 200 probation, a misdemeanor designation under § 13-3407(B)(1) or § 13-604, treatment-based resolutions, and eventual sealing or set-aside are all different doors, and they are not all open in every case. Knowing which are open, and moving early enough that they stay open, is most of the work.
Two of our attorneys are former prosecutors. In a drug case that is worth something concrete: diversion and charge-level decisions are made inside a prosecutor’s office, on the prosecutor’s criteria, and knowing how those decisions actually get made shapes how and when we make the ask.
We try cases. That matters here more than in most areas, because the leverage that produces a good resolution in a drug case comes from the prosecutor’s belief that the suppression motion is real and that the file will actually be tried if it is not resolved.
Arizona cases rarely arrive alone. If any of these apply to your situation, or you are not sure which charge you are actually facing, these pages explain what to expect:
Felony drug charges in Maricopa County are filed in Maricopa County Superior Court and prosecuted by the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, which also controls access to the Felony Diversion Program. Misdemeanor drug and paraphernalia charges are prosecuted in the municipal court for the city where the stop occurred or in the applicable justice court — Phoenix Municipal Court, Mesa Municipal Court, Scottsdale City Court, Tempe Municipal Court, Chandler Municipal Court, Gilbert Municipal Court, Glendale City Court, Peoria Municipal Court, Surprise Municipal Court, and the Maricopa County Justice Courts. Where your case is filed determines who prosecutes it, which diversion and treatment options exist, and what resolutions are realistically available.
This page is general legal information about Arizona law, not legal advice about your case, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case turns on its own facts. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Rating
We had an outstanding experience working with Ryan Tait at The Nova Law Group. We were facing a frustrating situation involving a delayed leasing fee from a leasing company, and Ryan stepped in with confidence, clarity, and professionalism. From the very beginning, he provided sound legal advice and thoughtful guidance that helped us understand our options and move forward strategically. He was responsive, knowledgeable, and truly advocated on our behalf. Thanks to his diligence and expertise, we were able to successfully obtain the leasing fee that had been delayed. We are incredibly grateful for his support throughout the process. If you are looking for an attorney who is professional, effective, and genuinely committed to helping his clients, we highly recommend Ryan and his team.
If you’re looking for a law group that truly cares about you and makes a difficult situation less stressful, these are your people. Ryan took on my case and was so caring and compassionate — I was really down after my DUI accident and felt like my world was ending. They made everything feel less scary and showed me there really was light at the end of the tunnel. Alexis was my lawyer, and she was truly heaven-sent. She’s now representing a family member of mine, and I know they’ll be in the best hands. 1000/10 recommend this team for any of your legal troubles! They treat you like family and make the whole process as smooth and stress-free as possible. Thank you, Ryan and Alexis!
Tait and hall did so well with my case. To be specific Brooke and Alexis took my case and ended with no jail time nor anything on my background for a misdemeanor and even dropped my felony charge. Amazing work! Thank you tait and hall law firm staff.
Tait & Hall is without a doubt the best law firm in valley. Ryan and his team are kind, understanding, and very good listeners. Each member of his team was well educated, knowledgable and very professional. The team at Tait & Hall models the character of their Leader. They are proud about their representation of you, Kind, and supportive and most of all they won't give up on you. Grateful to have found this team!
I just want to express how grateful I am to have contacted them for my case. They are the most efficient, most professional, and most communicative firm i’ve ever had the pleasure to deal with. Mr. Tait and his assistant got all the required documents for me within a week of contacting them, something my previous attorney failed to do for an entire year. If you’re looking for help for something that’s within their area of expertise, please reach out and I promise you that you will not regret it. I would’ve saved myself so much time, money, and effort bouncing between law firms if I had contacted Tait & Hall first. I’d give them a thousand stars if I could. Thank you guys!!!!
