According to Arizona law, who can be assumed to have knowledge that property was stolen?

In Arizona law, certain individuals can be deemed to have knowledge that property is stolen based on the circumstances surrounding the acquisition of that property. The buyer of a car can be assumed to have knowledge that the vehicle was likely stolen if there were clear indicators or evidence suggesting that the transaction was suspicious, such as a significantly below market price, a lack of proper documentation, or the seller's evasiveness.

This presumption is based on the concept of "constructive knowledge," where the buyer, by virtue of their actions and the context of the purchase, should have been aware that the property might not have been acquired legally. The law expects buyers to exercise due diligence to ensure they are not participating in the trafficking of stolen goods.

Other individuals, such as the owner of the property, the police officer, or the seller, have different legal standings and circumstances regarding knowledge of stolen property. The owner would obviously be aware that their property is missing, but that does not equate to proving knowledge of the circumstances of its sale. A police officer may have investigative authority but does not inherently possess knowledge regarding specific transactions unless evidence supports that conclusion. Likewise, the seller may be subject to scrutiny, but complications arise depending on their intent and awareness of the status of the