In State ex rel. Romley v. Dairman, 208 Ariz. 484, 4852, 95 P.3d 548, 549 (App. 2004), a trial court ordered a victim fingerprinted to allow the defendant's counsel to run a conflict check despite the State's claim that fingerprinting the victim violated the Victims' Bill of Rights. 202 Ariz. at 363 3-4, 45 P.3d at 686. On special action review, this Court recognized that although 13-4434(A)'s right to refuse disclosure did not explicitly include fingerprinting, the statute nevertheless allowed victims to refuse fingerprinting because "fingerprinting a victim is a significant invasion of a victim's . . . privacy" and thus "significantly infringes upon a victim's constitutional and statutory rights." Id. at 36511, 45 P.3d at 688. The Court further held that requiring fingerprinting would violate public policy because it would deter victims from coming forward and assisting the prosecution of criminal acts, thus interfering with victims' rights to justice and due process. Id. at12.