dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion. My reasons are similar to those I expressed in my dissent in a similar case, In the Matter of Appeal in Maricopa County No. JV-508801, 183 Ariz. 175, 901 P.2d 1205 (App.1995).
The existence of a provision requiring fingerprint identification of serious juvenile offenders does not determine the issue here. The fact that the Arizona Legislature chose to require fingerprints for felony type offenses does not mean that it also chose to forbid fingerprints when the offense is a lesser one. The statute, section 8-241(0), is simply silent on the question.
Nor do I find the legislative history of section 8-241(0) helpful. That the legislature omitted a prior provision requiring fingerprints from juveniles who had committed class 1 misdemeanors reveals only the Legislature’s intention regarding which fingerprints were to be required. But no one involved in this case contends that this juvenile’s fingerprints were required to be obtained. Instead, the juvenile court ordered them as a condition of probation in the exercise of its discretion.
The issue is thus not whether the statute requires that the fingerprints be taken, but whether the juvenile court may order fingerprint identification. The answer to that is, for two reasons, quite clearly “yes.” First, that result is entirely consistent with the criminal records statutes. Second, the juvenile court has that authority under the statute dealing with juvenile probation.
Arizona’s criminal records statutes contemplate the receipt and retention of records such as the fingerprints involved here. The Department of Public Safety (DPS) is the central repository for various criminal history and criminal justice information. A.R.S. § 41-1750(A). This includes the fingerprints of arrestees of both felony and misdemeanor offenses. AR.S. § 41-1750(A)(1).
Moreover, the legislature directive to DPS is broad, not restrictive. The DPS has a generous mandate to collect useful information, A.R.S. § 41-1750(A)(2), and to encourage its statewide exchange. A.R.S. § 41-1750(A)(9).
AFIS is a part of the role of DPS as the central repository of criminal justice informa*362tion. See A.R.S. §§ 41-1750(A)(11), 41-2413. APIS is simply a computerized version of the DPS fingerprint database. Its purpose is to render fingerprint checks more efficient by avoiding manual inspection of fingerprint cards, thereby aiding the resolution of unsolved crimes. Minutes of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary (January 9, 1990); Minutes of the House Committee on the Judiciary (March 26, 1990).
Nothing in these statutes suggests that the Legislature intended to exclude from AFIS the fingerprints of a juvenile misdemeanant. The fingerprint record of a juvenile or adult arrested for a misdemeanor is sent to DPS and kept on a fingerprint card. APIS is the computerized version of the card file. There is no apparent reason for concluding that the same record, required to be kept on paper, cannot be maintained on computer. That would not prevent ali access to the record, but would merely hamstring law enforcement by preventing efficient access. Such a result is plainly contrary to the legislative purpose of the criminal justice records statutes.
The second reason that the juvenile court’s order should be affirmed is that it was authorized by statute. The Legislature has given ' broad authority to impose conditions of juvenile probation. By statute, the juvenile court’ “may enter judgment as follows: ... 2. It may award a delinquent child: ... (b) to a probation department, subject to such conditions as the court may impose.” A.R.S. § 8-241(A)(emphasis added). Thus, while section 8-241(0) — relied upon by the majority — governs what the court must do, section 8-241(A) governs what the court may do.2
This statutory authority is enough to permit the court to order fingerprints or any other rational condition of probation. As I observed in my dissent in the prior case, which involved DNA testing:
Indeed it is settled that the juvenile court has very broad discretion to impose conditions of probation. The court’s disposition of juveniles is reviewed only for abuse of discretion. In the Matter of Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-128676, 177 Ariz. 352, 353, 868 P.2d 365, 366 (App.1994). Specifically, “[a] condition of probation which does not violate basic fundamental rights and bears a relationship to the purpose of probation will not be disturbed on appeal.” In the Matter of Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Action No. J-20705-3, 133 Ariz. 296, 298, 650 P.2d 1278, 1280 (App.1982).
183 Ariz. at 179, 901 P.2d at 1209.
The majority vacates not the directive that fingerprints be taken, but .only the part of the juvenile court’s order that APIS act as their repository. I see no persuasive basis for this holding. As discussed above, no statute expressly forbids the receipt by AFIS of the fingerprints of a juvenile who has committed a misdemeanor. Nor do I discern any reason for the courts to forbid it.
The executive branch has made no complaint whatever about the court’s transmission of the fingerprint record. No argument is made that the record would be burdensome to maintain or otherwise troublesome to the executive branch. No separation of powers issue was raised by the juvenile, and none appears to exist.3
*363No argument is made here that the juvenile court’s order is irrational or violates fundamental rights. The juvenile court acted within its broad discretion in ordering the fingerprint and its transmission to AFIS as a condition of probation. The majority’s holding means that the fingerprint can be taken and kept on file at DPS, but not placed on the DPS computer. Seeing no justification for that result, I must dissent from it.
. I agree with the majority that section 8-241(0) "exclude[es] from its effects all subjects not specifically mentioned.” (Opinion at 1369). This merely means, however, that this provision did not mandate the transmission of fingerprints of juvenile misdemeanants to AFIS. The provision is completely silent on whether such fingerprints may be sent to AFIS, and that is the issue here.
. The juvenile suggests that some formal agreement is necessary to authorize the juvenile court and the executive branch to cooperate in this way. No authority is cited for this proposition, and I am unaware of any statutory or constitutional requirement of a written agreement before the branches of government may cooperate with one another. The juvenile also suggests that, when information is disseminated from AFIS about him, he might be mistaken for a felony juvenile offender because only felony offenders’ records are otherwise included. This is not only speculation, it does not logically follow. If today we were to allow juvenile courts to send fingerprint records to AFIS, then the database would include both felony and misdemeanor level offenders, and a user of the database would have to inquire further — or AFIS would inform users— about the nature of the offense.