Keyword search across all of the laws in the states. Subject-area tabs above allow you to narrow results. Click the advanced search for further refinement.
Every law can be saved to the Reform Builder
Below are the attorney general opinions that meet your search criteria.
14 Results
State | Citation | Description/Statute Name | Question | Brief answer | Language from the opinion | When does the case apply? | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Add to Dashboard
|
Maryland | 83 Md. Op. Att'y Gen. 33 (1998) | Maryland-Attorney General opinion |
Are the same procedural protections that are required in criminal proceedings required in civil collection/contempt proceedings arising from criminal justice debt when those proceedings may result in incarceration? What if + See morethe proceedings may only result in additional fines or non-incarceration penalties?
|
The same procedural protections apply when a defendant may be incarcerated. Otherwise, they do not apply. |
In similar language, the Maryland Public Defender Act requires representation by that office “at all stages” of specified proceedings. When incarceration is sought in a civil contempt proceeding, a hearing + See morebefore a master is a critical stage of such a proceeding. Accordingly, both the right to counsel and the obligation of the Public Defender to provide representation for indigents apply.If incarceration is not sought as a remedy in a contempt proceeding, the constitutional right to counsel is not implicated.6 Nor is the Public Defender obligated to provide representation.
|
Ability to pay |
Add to Dashboard
|
Maryland | 79 Md. Op. Att'y Gen. 354 (1994) | Maryland-Attorney General opinion | Does allowing different municipalities to set their own indigency standards or fines/fees violate the equal protection afforded by the state’s constitution? | No. A case-by-case standard could be used for each defendant. However, uniform eligibility requirements must be used under the Administrative Procedure Act |
In theory, the Office of the Public Defender might administer these eligibility provisions on an entirely individualized basis, through an ad hoc assessment of each applicant's financial ability. [However, i]t + See moreis our opinion that the eligibility criteria established by the Public Defenders Office must be adopted under the rulemaking procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act in order to be legally effective.
|
Fines and fees |
Add to Dashboard
|
Maryland | See Md. Code Ann., State Fin. & Proc. § 3-302 | Maryland-Attorney General opinion | Which fines and/or fees may be collected by a private vendor? | N/A. Maryland has a state central collection agency which collects fees. | Revenue flow | |
Add to Dashboard
|
Maryland | 86 Md. Op. Att'y Gen. 183 (2001) | Maryland-Attorney General opinion | Who has the burden of proof in an ability to pay determination? What is the standard of proof required? | No burden or standard has been established. Instead, the Court simply inquires into the reason for inability to pay the fine. |
"Thus, the Constitution places both procedural and substantive limitations on a court's power to incarcerate a criminal defendant in lieu of payment of a fine. First, the court must inquire + See moreinto the reason why the defendant has failed to pay the fine. If the failure to pay is attributable to indigency the court must also consider alternate methods of punishment. If the court ultimately decides that an additional period of incarceration is necessary to serve the interests of deterrence and punishment, the aggregate period of incarceration cannot exceed the maximum sentence for the underlying offense."
|
Ability to pay |
Add to Dashboard
|
Maryland | Simms v. State, 501 A.2d 1338, 1342 (1986) | Maryland-Attorney General opinion | Should ability to pay be considered when imposing fines or fees or only when collecting fines or fees? | Case law says at the time of collection. | "A hearing to determine ability to pay is appropriate not at the time of the imposition of the sentence but at the time of its enforcement" | Ability to pay |
Add to Dashboard
|
Maryland | Md. Const. art. IV, § 18; See, e.g., MD R ADR Rule 17-208 | Maryland-Attorney General opinion | What authority do county or municipal courts have to set fines or fees? | They have authority as granted to them by the Court of Appeals |
"Subject to the approval of the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals, the county administrative judge of each circuit court shall develop and adopt maximum hourly rate fee schedules + See morefor court-designated individuals conducting each type of fee-for-service ADR"
|
Fines and fees |
Add to Dashboard
|
Maryland |
Md. Const. art. IV, § 18 (granting the Court of Appeals the authority to enacts rules with the force of law); see, e.g., MD R ADR Rule 17-208 (the Court + See moreof Appeals authorizes its Chief Judge to approve fee schedules)
|
Maryland-Attorney General opinion | What authority does the state supreme court have to impose binding state-wide rules on the imposition or collection of fees and fines? | Maryland's highest court can impose binding state-wide rules, including fines and fees. |
"The Court of Appeals from time to time shall adopt rules and regulations concerning the practice and procedure in and the administration of the appellate courts and in the other + See morecourts of this State, which shall have the force of law until rescinded, changed or modified by the Court of Appeals or otherwise by law. The power of courts other than the Court of Appeals to make rules of practice and procedure, or administrative rules, shall be subject to the rules and regulations adopted by the Court of Appeals or otherwise by law." "Subject to the approval of the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals, the county administrative judge of each circuit court shall develop and adopt maximum hourly rate fee schedules for court-designated individuals conducting each type of fee-for-service ADR"
|
Fines and fees |
Add to Dashboard
|
Nevada | 1987 Nev. Op. Att'y Gen. 29 (1987) | Execution of sentence and fine | Should ability to pay be considered when imposing fines or fees or only when collecting fines or fees? | court hearing must be held to determine a criminal defendant's ability to pay, before a criminal fine may be converted to an additional term of imprisonment. | under Nevada law a court hearing must be held to determine a criminal defendant's ability to pay, before a criminal fine may be converted to an additional term of imprisonment. | Ability to pay |
Add to Dashboard
|
Nevada | 1993 Nev. Op. Att'y Gen. 102 (1993) | Fines, judgments, judges | What authority do county or municipal courts have to set fines or fees? | Courts may, in the exercise of their judgment, set fines and fees. |
NRS 244.207, which authorizes counties to establish a collection division to collect fees and monetary sanctions imposed by courts that are ultimately owed to the county when collected, does not + See moreviolate Nevada's separation of powers provision. Although all collection efforts can be deferred by the courts, the legislative intent underlying NRS 244.207(1)(f) is to not impede collection efforts pending court rulings at any level. There is nothing in this statutory provision which impedes the courts in the exercise of their inherent judicial power to enforce their judgments and orders. Therefore, NRS 244.207 is constitutional.
|
Fines and fees |
Add to Dashboard
|
Nevada | 1987 Nev. Op. Att'y Gen. 29 (1987) | Criminal law - execution of sentence of imprisonment and fine | Other applicable opinions |
District Attorney may collect fines and fees when he prosecuted the case, attorney general may collect fines and fees when the attorney general's office prosecuted the case, and the Department + See moreof Prisons may only colelct fines and fees only when specifically granted the authority to do so by law.
|
Nevada statutes presently provide two methods for enforcement and collection of a criminal fine. See Nev.Rev.Stat. §§ 176.065 and 176.275. In both cases, the district attorney has authority to proceed + See moreto collect the fine on a criminal judgment where the district attorney has been the prosecutor. On the other hand, there is no clear authority in the office of the attorney general to undertake any action to collect the fines which have been imposed in criminal cases prosecuted by a district attorney. The attorney general would have authority to take action to enforce fines in cases prosecuted by the attorney general. See Nev.Rev.Stat. § 228.125. Similarly, the Department of Prisons has no specific authority to collect fines through deductions from wages or other property of offenders, or to institute any action against an offender to obtain the payment of a fine. The department is given specific authority to collect only certain debts owed by inmates, such as restitution or family support. See Nev.Rev.Stat. § 209.346 and 209.4811-209.4843; 209.352. Criminal fines are not included as a debt which may be collected by the Department of Prisons. This specific grant of authority to collect only certain debts implies a lack of authority to collect others. See Galloway v. Truesdell, 83 Nev. 13, 26, 422 P.2d 237 (1967). .
|
Revenue flow |
Add to Dashboard
|
Nevada | 1984 Nev. Op. Att'y Gen. 35 (1984) | Constitutional law - evidence-criminal procedure | Only nonindigent persons may be the subject of recoupment measures |
Where the legislature provides an express statutory system for recoupment of litigation costs from a convicted defendant the courts will generally enforce these provisions despite constitutional challenges. An implicit condition + See morefor the imposition of costs upon the convicted offender is that only nonindigent persons can be the subject of recoupment measures.
These statutes do not have a chilling effect on the exercise of other constitutional rights under the fifth and sixth amendments.
|
Ability to pay | |
Add to Dashboard
|
Nevada | 1987 Nev. Op. Att'y Gen. 29 (1987) | Criminal law - execution of sentence of imprisonment and fine |
District Attorney may collect fines and fees when he prosecuted the case, attorney general may collect fines and fees when the attorney general's office prosecuted the case, and the Department + See moreof Prisons may only collect fines and fees only when specifically granted the authority to do so by law.
|
Nevada statutes presently provide two methods for enforcement and collection of a criminal fine. See Nev.Rev.Stat. §§ 176.065 and 176.275. In both cases, the district attorney has authority to proceed + See moreto collect the fine on a criminal judgment where the district attorney has been the prosecutor. On the other hand, there is no clear authority in the office of the attorney general to undertake any action to collect the fines which have been imposed in criminal cases prosecuted by a district attorney. The attorney general would have authority to take action to enforce fines in cases prosecuted by the attorney general. See Nev.Rev.Stat. § 228.125. Similarly, the Department of Prisons has no specific authority to collect fines through deductions from wages or other property of offenders, or to institute any action against an offender to obtain the payment of a fine. The department is given specific authority to collect only certain debts owed by inmates, such as restitution or family support. See Nev.Rev.Stat. § 209.346 and 209.4811-209.4843; 209.352. Criminal fines are not included as a debt which may be collected by the Department of Prisons. This specific grant of authority to collect only certain debts implies a lack of authority to collect others. See Galloway v. Truesdell, 83 Nev. 13, 26, 422 P.2d 237 (1967). .
|
Fines and fees | |
Add to Dashboard
|
Minnesota | Mr. Richard T. Jessen Minn. Op. Atty. Gen. 1025B 1981 WL 157319 | Minnesota-Attorney General opinion | Other applicable oppinions | Municipalities and towns are entitled to at least half of the funds from fines and fees collected by the county clerk |
The crucial feature in the context of this statute is that, unlike the large number of special and limited purpose government units, a municipality, or a city, is a general + See morepurpose government unit. For example, the municipality is authorized by a wide range of statutes to engage in a variety of functions, including providing police protection and protecting the public health, safety, welfare and Morals. See; Minn. Stat. chs. 410 to 472 (1980). Review of the various local government units reveals that a town is the unit most similar to a municipality. To some extent, towns also possess traditional police powers and authority to provide law enforcement services. Minn. Stat. §§ 365.15; 367.03, subd. 3 (1980). Indeed, numerous towns are given the powers and authority of a statutory city. Minn. Stat. § 368.011 (1980). We therefore conclude that while the county is entitled to one-half of all such fines or penalties, the municipality or town in which a statutory violation is committed is entitled to the other half of such funds.
|
Revenue flow |
Add to Dashboard
|
Minnesota | Mr. D. Scott Ballou Minn. Op. Atty. Gen. 1025-B 1980 WL 119583 | Minnesota-Attorney General opinion | In most circumstances, the allocation of funds collected by fines and fees is based on the geographic location of the offense that gave rise to the fine or fee, |
The manner of disposition of fines and fees is based on the geographic location of the offense giving rise to the fee or fine and not on the law enforcement + See moreagency responsible for issuing the citation. The only exceptions provided by the statute occur when the Minnesota Highway Patrol issues the citation. See Minn. Stat. § 299D.03, subd. 5 (1978), or where the fines or fees were collected prior to August 1, 1975, see Minn. Stat. § 487.33, subd. 6 (1978). However, the fines and fees referred to in Minn. Stat. § 487.33, subd. 5 (1978) are limited to certain parking fines, which must be paid over in full each month to the municipality in which the parking violation occurred, and fines and penalties collected as a result of violations of a state statute, or ordinance, charter provision, rules or regulation of a city must be equally divided on a monthly basis.
In addition, monies collected as a result of a violation of an ordinance promulgated by a town board of supervisors or board of county commissioners shall be retained by the county treasurer pursuant to the last sentence of Minn. Stat. § 487.33, subd. 5 (1978).
|
Revenue flow |