in procedure, fairness in administration, the elimination of unnecessary delay and expense, and to protect the fundamental rights of the individual while preserving the public welfare.” In our opinion, our construction of Rule 15.7 to permit a restitution-ary monetary sanction supports each of these objectives and especially the elimination of unnecessary delay and expense. ¶41 We have recognized that the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, as the trial court found and defense counsel acknowledged, made a good faith effort to meet its discovery obligations in this case. Yet, as we have also recognized, a law enforcement agency participating in a criminal investigation operates as an arm of the prosecutor in matters of discovery. See supra ¶ 21; see also Thompson, 803 P.2d at 976 (<HOLDING>). When such an agency is recalcitrant,
holding that state court could regulate the practice of law in federal courts located in the state holding that proof that the person has dominion over the premises where the firearm is located is sufficient to establish constructive possession citation omitted recognizing that missing data were located in a laboratory within the constructive control of the state holding that a marijuana greenhouse located in an openly accessible shared area of property was not sufficient to support constructive possession absent additional evidence of intent to possess or control recognizing theory of constructive possession