Search

Arizona Prop 200: Understanding What It Means

Executive Summary

  • Proposition 200 in Arizona amended ARS 13-901 to protect some non-violent drug offenders by offering them alternative sentencing if they agree to probation and treatment over incarceration.
  • Since voters passed the initiative in 1996, Arizona Prop 200 has reduced incarceration rates by encouraging probation and the attendance of drug treatment programs, reshaping Arizona’s criminal justice approach.
  • Still, some situations can result in probation ineligibility, such as if the offender has violent crime convictions, at least two other drug-related offenses, possessed methamphetamine or refused mandated treatment.
  • If you have been charged with possession of a controlled substance or paraphernalia, consult a trusted criminal defense attorney to determine if you qualify for alternative sentencing under Arizona Prop 200.

Introduction to Arizona Prop 200 and Its Relevance to Criminal Law

Arizona ballot propositions, like Prop 200, directly give voters the power to impact state laws by enacting or amending statutes. Some propositions can shape criminal justice policies by reforming sentencing, probation and rehabilitation requirements for specific offenses.

Voters passed Proposition 200 in Arizona back in 1996, and arguably, its most noteworthy impact was revolutionizing the way the state’s criminal justice system handles some non-violent drug offenses. Amending ARS 13-901, Arizona Prop 200 offers alternative sentencing options for some first- and second-time offenders convicted of non-violent charges relating to the possession of illegal drugs or paraphernalia. Instead of serving jail time, the eligible offenders may be able to opt for drug treatment programs and probation.

Still, Prop 200 does not offer alternative sentencing if the controlled substance in question is methamphetamine or if the offender was selling or manufacturing the illegal drug, amongst other exceptions. It is essential to understand the intricacies of Proposition 200 in Arizona to know if it could have an impact on you or your loved one’s drug offense sentencing, probation eligibility and treatment options.

Background and Purpose of Prop 200

When it was on the ballot in 1996, Arizona Prop 200 was approved by about 65.41% of its voters, causing it to go into effect and amend various statutes. The main purposes of Proposition 200 in Arizona were:

  • Forcing violent offenders who were under the influence of drugs to complete their entire sentence without parole or early release.
  • Offering probation, parole and treatment programs as alternative sentencing options for first- and second-time convictions of personal drug possession.
  • Allowing doctors to prescribe certain controlled substances that were otherwise illegal for certain patients with serious medical conditions.
  • Establishing a dedicated fund and commission to fuel drug-related treatment courses and resources.

Although Prop 200 made several significant changes, including increasing public spending on drug treatment initiatives, many people consider its promotion of alternative sentencing options its most notable impact.

Impact of Prop 200 on the Arizona Criminal Justice System

The list of illegal drugs in Arizona is extensive and has contributed to high incarceration rates. By amending ARS 13-901, Arizona Prop 200 was able to offer alternative sentencing that increased emphasis on rehabilitation over punishment by giving eligible non-violent drug offenders the option to attend treatment programs and probation instead of serving jail time. These rehabilitation-focused initiatives were made possible by the dedicated drug treatment fund that Prop 200 also implemented.

Almost immediately after this proposition was implemented in Arizona, the state experienced a reduction in incarceration due to the proposition requiring parole for any inmates already serving time for personal possession or use of controlled substances, assuming they were not deemed a danger to the public by the Board of Executive Clemency. According to Lynden Cain, the administrator of the Department of Corrections Offender Information Services Bureau, 140 of the 1,335 inmates incarcerated when Prop 200 was adopted were eligible for release due to the proposition’s guidelines—accordingly, 67 were released in 1997, 67 more in 1998 and the remaining 6 in 1999.

Fortunately, this leniency applied to many future drug-related offenses as well, steadily lowering incarceration rates for non-violent drug offenders by continuing to offer probation as an alternative to standard sentencing for many individuals. Still, if these people miss or fail a drug test, they can go to jail for violating probation.

Key Components of Prop 200 Alternative Sentencing

Even when it was first adopted, Prop 200 had very specific terminology outlining several alternative sentencing requirements. Some examples of key components Prop 200 added to ARS 13-901 are:

  • Probation eligibility – Only people convicted of non-violent drug offenses for the first or second time can qualify for probation instead of incarceration.
  • Mandatory treatment programs – The law reinforces a rehabilitative approach by mandating that eligible offenders participate in drug treatment programs if they opt for probation instead of traditional jail sentencing.

Although the law can limit jail time for qualifying drug offenses, some situations may make an offender ineligible and result in felony drug charges.

Eligibility Exceptions

Some examples of Arizona Prop 200 exceptions that can disqualify a drug-related offender from being able to choose alternative sentencing options are:

  • Violent crimes – If the offender used or threatened the use of physical force against another person.
  • Drug sales or manufacturing – If the person is convicted of producing, selling or transporting drugs with the intention of selling.
  • Methamphetamine offenses – If the conviction involves methamphetamine possession or use.
  • Multiple drug-related offenses – If the person has three or more drug possession convictions.
  • Refusal of treatment – If the defendant rejects or fails to complete the court-ordered drug treatment plan.
  • Probation rejection – If the offender refuses or breaches probation terms.

Arizona residents can reference the above exceptions to roughly gauge their eligibility for Prop 200’s provisions. However, court discretion plays a large role in the approval of probation and treatment instead of standard sentencing, meaning the judge will make the final decision.

You should contact a qualified criminal defense attorney to get expert-level insight into how Proposition 200 impacts your specific case. They can also offer you legal guidance to help you achieve the best possible outcome.

Legal Challenges and Amendments to Prop 200

Since its conception, Proposition 200 in Arizona has faced legal scrutiny over its scope and eligibility criteria. Over the last couple of decades, minor adjustments have been made to Prop 200 to address the evolving needs within Arizona’s criminal justice landscape.

For example, Proposition 301 was passed in 2006 to exempt methamphetamine possession and usage from Prop 200’s provisions, as mentioned above. This means that an offender is not eligible for alternative sentencing if the offense involved methamphetamine, regardless of whether they meet the other requirements laid out by Arizona Prop 200.

Other amendments include eligibility clarifications, including the specification that only offenses involving personal drug use or possession qualify under Prop 200, exempting cases involving the distribution of controlled substances. As of now, these changes are still reflected in ARS 13-901 and continue to play a significant role in the court’s handling of drug-related offenses.

Broader Impact of Prop 200 and Related Policies

In addition to Arizona Prop 200’s impact on the criminal justice system, this proposition aimed to combat drug use in general. As touched on earlier, ARS 13-901.02 created the Drug Treatment and Education Fund, which is managed by the Arizona Supreme Court’s administrative office. The fund is financed through a portion of luxury taxes on alcohol and tobacco products.

Half the funds are allotted to probation departments to help cover the costs of placing individuals in substance abuse education and treatment programs. The other half is sent to the Arizona Parent Commission on Drug Education and Prevention (APCDEP) to help fund initiatives that enhance parental involvement in drug education and treatment efforts.

Other States Following Suit

Since Arizona Prop 200 set a precedent for drug sentencing policies by focusing on rehabilitation, it has influenced ongoing discussions about criminal justice reforms and helped similar approaches gain traction in other states.

Around the same time as Arizona, the Connecticut Law Revision Commission began studying state drug policies to honor the request of the Judiciary Committee’s co-chairs. By 1997, the commission recommended incorporating more public health strategies into Connecticut’s criminal justice system, revising programs to address drug laws more effectively. To this day, Connecticut’s courts usually place most first offenders convicted of personal possession of illegal drugs on probation.

Get Experienced Legal Representation For Drug-Related Offenses

Proposition 200 in Arizona has fundamentally influenced our state’s handling of drug crimes. By offering probation combined with court-ordered treatment programs as substitutes for typical jail sentencing, Prop 200 has helped decrease incarceration rates. Plus, Arizona Prop 200 has caused the state to put a larger focus on rehabilitation for people who struggle with drug use, creating a dedicated fund to fuel treatment initiatives.

Prop 200 does not apply to all drug-related offenses, especially ones that involve violence, drug distribution or methamphetamine. However, it can offer many people alternative sentencing options if it is their first or second conviction for a drug crime in Scottsdale, Phoenix, Peoria or another part of Arizona.

Understanding how Proposition 200’s potential applications can be crucial for anyone facing drug-related charges. You should contact the trusted criminal defense law team at JacksonWhite Law to explore your options for alternative sentencing under Arizona Prop 200. Regardless of your unique situation, our experienced attorneys can help you craft a defense strategy that can yield the best results possible.

Contact the JacksonWhite criminal law team at (480) 467-4370 to get reliable legal guidance for your case.

Meet the Author

jeremy geigle criminal defense attorney

Jeremy S. Geigle

Criminal Defense Attorney

Jeremy Geigle is a managing shareholder at JacksonWhite and the head of the criminal defense team. For over 20 years, Jeremy has guided both juveniles and adults through the challenging criminal legal system with care and empathy. He strongly believes that everyone deserves the best defense possible and that’s what he strives to provide to every client JacksonWhite represents. Jeremy works tirelessly with his team of experienced attorneys to reduce charges, limit penalties, and protect the rights of those accused.

Free Criminal Case Review

Call (480) 467-4370 or fill out the form below to get your free consultation and discuss your best legal options.