Arizona
Arizona has no forensic science commission or analyst license, and it requires lab accreditation only for labs that share in a state forensics fund. Since 2023 the Supreme Court has amended Rule 702 to match the 2023 federal change and added commentary on suspect altered or generated evidence to a lawyer ethics rule. The Legislature has tied the forensics fund to accreditation and now lets a physician trained, not board certified, in forensic pathology supervise autopsies by trainees.
- Sources checked
- Part of
- Forensic Ledger
At a glance
- Oversight body
- None. No standing forensic science commission or lab oversight board was found. The Department of Public Safety’s scientific criminal analysis section is the state crime lab, an operating lab rather than an oversight body (A.R.S. 41-1771). Laws 2023, ch. 154 (HB 2482), sec. 2, approved May 19, 2023, created a one-time, unpaid study committee on sexual assault kits, appointed by the House Speaker,, with a report due December 1, 2023. That section was repealed from and after September 30, 2024 (Laws 2023, ch. 154).
- Lab accreditation
- No general rule. A “full-service crime laboratory” must be accredited to share in the DPS forensics fund (A.R.S. 41-1730(F)(4)); an unaccredited lab is not barred from working or testifying. Sexual assault kits go to a “public accredited crime laboratory,” which the statute defines simply as the DPS lab or a municipal crime lab (13-1426(C), (J)(2)). Post-conviction advanced forensic testing is done by the DPS lab, the investigating agency’s lab or, if the parties agree, “another internationally accredited laboratory” (13-4241(F)). Post-conviction DNA testing must be done by a lab that meets the standards of the DNA advisory board (13-4240(F)).
- Analyst licensing
- None. The DPS director’s rules for rapid DNA testing must set qualifications for the people who do the testing and for instructors (A.R.S. 41-1772(A)(3)–(4)). A lab that shares in the forensics fund must employ at least one full-time forensic scientist with a bachelor’s degree in a physical or natural science (41-1730(F)(2)). Neither is a license.
- Admissibility standard
- Ariz. R. Evid. 702, amended effective January 1, 2024 to match the 2023 change to Federal Rule 702 (Order R-23-0004). The proponent must show the court that it is “more likely than not” that each element is met. A separate statute, A.R.S. 12-2203, sets its own test for expert testimony in civil and criminal actions; how it relates to the court rule was not verified. The court’s August 2026 list of pending rule petitions shows none for the Rules of Evidence.
- Post-conviction forensic relief
- No changed-science statute. A person convicted of and sentenced for a felony may ask for DNA testing at any time (A.R.S. 13-4240). The court must order testing if there is a reasonable probability the person would not have been prosecuted or convicted had exculpatory results been obtained (B), and may order it on a lesser showing (C). If the results are favorable, the court must order a hearing despite any timeliness bar (K). Section 13-4241 allows a request for testing by a method not available at sentencing that “has become widely accepted in the scientific community,” or for a database search. Besides the reasonable-probability finding, the court must find that the evidence still exists in testable condition, was not tested that way before, and may resolve an unresolved issue (13-4241(B)). Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.1(e) and (h) allow claims on newly discovered material facts and on clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable fact-finder would find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
- DNA database scope
- All felony convictions plus listed arrestees (A.R.S. 13-610(O)). Covered arrests include homicide offenses, listed sexual offenses, burglary under 13-1507 and 13-1508, and dangerous serious offenses. Arrestees are swabbed when transferred to a jail, or must report within five days if summoned (13-610(K), (L)). An arrestee may petition for expungement if charges are not filed in time, are dismissed, or end in acquittal (M). DPS keeps samples for at least 35 years (H)(3).
- Facial recognition
- None. No statute governs police use of facial recognition. Biometric privacy bills SB 1238 (2023) and SB 1717 (2026) did not pass, and a scan of every bill enacted from 2023 to 2026 found no facial recognition or biometric law.
Changes, 2023 to 2026
Trainee autopsies may be supervised by a physician trained, not board certified, in forensic pathology
A county medical examiner may authorize medical students, and residents and fellows in pathology training, to perform autopsies under a licensed physician “trained” in forensic pathology. The words “board certified” were struck (11-594(B)(2)). Pathologist assistants must still work under the direct supervision of a physician board certified in forensic pathology (11-594(B)(3)). The act also extends the disease-exposure testing provisions of A.R.S. 32-3207 to persons authorized to perform medical examiner duties, including supervised trainees, and makes conforming changes to 36-831.
For practitioners: When a trainee performed the autopsy, ask for the supervising physician’s forensic pathology training and certification.
Ethics comment on evidence a lawyer suspects is altered or generated
A new passage in Comment [8] to ER 3.3 addresses evidence a lawyer reasonably believes “has been materially altered or generated with the intent to deceive the court.” The comment calls for a reasonable inquiry before the lawyer offers it. Factors in how far the inquiry must go may include the evidence’s probative value, the value or importance of the case or issue, its source, and whether affordable tools to check authenticity are available. If after inquiry the lawyer still does not know the evidence is false, “the lawyer retains discretion to submit the evidence.” This is commentary only: there is no new rule text and no authentication standard for courts or labs. The same order’s change to ER 1.16 requires lawyers to assess the risk that a client will use their services for a crime or fraud, with money laundering and terrorist financing among the examples in the comment; it does not concern evidence.
For practitioners: The comment does not set an authentication standard; challenge suspect digital evidence under the Rules of Evidence.
Rule 702 amended to match the 2023 federal change
The opening clause now requires that “the proponent demonstrates to the court that it is more likely than not that” elements (a) to (d) are met. Element (d) changed from “the expert has reliably applied” to “the expert’s opinion reflects a reliable application of” the principles and methods to the facts of the case. Elements (a) to (c) are unchanged. The Comment to the 2024 amendment says the change conforms to Federal Rule 702 as amended December 1, 2023, “to clarify the standard of proof that the proponent of expert testimony must satisfy as well as to address the issue of expert overstatement.” It adds that “cold” educative experts are still permitted, citing State v. Salazar-Mercado, 234 Ariz. 590 (2014).
For practitioners: The proponent bears a preponderance burden on each element, and an opinion that claims more than the method supports can be challenged under (d).
State forensics fund limited to accredited full-service crime labs
The act struck the fixed shares of the DPS forensics fund: DPS kept 55 percent, and 22, 12, 7 and 4 percent went to the Phoenix, Tucson, Mesa and Scottsdale police departments. Money now goes each quarter to each “full-service crime laboratory,” in proportion to crimes reported in the areas each lab serves. The act also struck the old basis for adjusting shares and the requirement that lab directors agree on the formula. It relettered the lab definition from (E) to (F). The degreed forensic scientist and DEA registration requirements carried over. New are: operation by a state criminal justice agency as an option, a “full-time” scientist in place of a “regularly employed” one, accreditation to ILAC G19 and ISO/IEC 17025 or 17020 or field-specific standards ((F)(4)), and at least six listed disciplines, one of them DNA, digital forensics or drug toxicology ((F)(5)).
For practitioners: An unaccredited lab may still work and testify; it only loses its share of this fund.
Pending bills
No bill on these topics is pending. The 2027 session convenes in January 2027.
- Bills that died in the 2026 session: SB 1796 (DNA match tracking system at DPS), SB 1117 (appropriation for the DPS crime lab) and SB 1717 (commercial biometric identifiers). Each was held in committee. SB 1796
- No petition to amend the Rules of Evidence is pending. Petition R-26-0005 would limit post-conviction notices under Rules 32.4 and 33.4 to seven pages; it was open for comment until October 1, 2026. Pending petitions, August 2026
Checked and unchanged
- No bill enacted from 2023 to 2026 amends A.R.S. 13-610 or 41-2418 (DNA collection and database), 13-4240 or 13-4241 (post-conviction testing), or 41-1772 (rapid DNA rules).
- No statute on genetic genealogy, facial recognition or police digital forensics was enacted from 2023 to 2026.
- Laws 2025, ch. 205 (HB 2581), signed May 13, 2025, created a DPS tracking system for sexual assault kit evidence (A.R.S. 41-1735). It is outside this tracker’s categories.
- The Legislature’s statute pages carry no history notes. “Unchanged” here rests on a title scan of every bill enacted from 2023 to 2026, so a change buried in an unrelated bill could be missed.
Last updated October 19, 2026Source: United States Council for Law & InvestigationCite as: United States Council for Law & Investigation, “Arizona forensic science oversight: Forensic Ledger,” uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/arizona (last updated October 19, 2026). Text licensed CC BY 4.0.