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.
15 Results
State | Citation | Description/Statute Name | Question | Brief answer | Language from the opinion | When does the case apply? | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Add to Dashboard
|
Virginia | 2000 Va. Op. Att'y. Gen. (2000) | Costs and fines dischargeable in bankruptcy | Other applicable opinions |
"Criminal costs, which may or may not be contingent upon sentence but are associated with conviction, and traffic fines are nondischargeable in Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings. Debt for restitution or + See morecriminal fine included in criminal sentence is nondischargeable in Chapter 13 bankruptcy; criminal fines not contingent upon sentence, traffic fines arising from traffic infractions, and civil traffic fines are dischargeable in Chapter 13 bankruptcies."
|
Enforcement | |
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
|
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
|
Oklahoma | 1999 OK AG 58 | Open Records Act | Other applicable opinions |
1. The Oklahoma Open Records Act applies to criminal pleadings + See more 2. Courts and District Attorneys must provie "prompt reasonable access" 3. District Attorneys must maintain confidential records
|
¶15 It is, therefore, the Opinion of the Attorney General that: 1. The pleadings in a criminal case, particularly the information, are "records" within the meaning of the Oklahoma Open + See moreRecords Act, 51 O.S. 24A.3 (1998). A court clerk must make such pleadings available for public inspection and copying once the district attorney has filed the pleading with the court clerk, 51 O.S. 24A.5 (1998), unless the pleading has been sealed by a court or is protected by a privilege of confidentiality, such as the confidentiality of a grand jury indictment by 22 O.S. 385, until such time as the order of the court expires or is removed and until the grand jury indictment is made public pursuant to statutory provision. A district attorney may keep information contained within the district attorney's litigation files confidential and so not disclose an information or other pleadings. See 51 O.S. 24A.12 (1991).
2. A court clerk or district attorney has no authority to withhold public records from inspection and copying. Such officers must provide "prompt, reasonable access" to the public pursuant to 51 O.S. 24A.5 (1998). This generally may include only the time required to locate and compile such public records. Id.
3. A district attorney may keep confidential records contained in the litigation files of that office. Police departments are not required to provide public access to records of the police department except as provided in Section 51 O.S. 24A.8 of the Open Records Act or pursuant to court order. Neither a district attorney nor a police department must make available for public inspection and copying a record which includes a list of all charges contained in an information. See 51 O.S. 24A.2 - 51 O.S. 24A.8 and 51 O.S. 24A.12 (1998).
|
Transparency |
Add to Dashboard
|
Wisconsin | 1995 WL 264119 (Wis.A.G.) | Forfeitures | What authority does the state supreme court have to impose binding state-wide rules on the imposition or collection of fees and fines? | Unclear with regard to fines and fees, but uniformity regarding the recovery of forfeitures. |
Section 799.01 provides in part:
(b) Forfeitures. Actions to recover forfeitures except as a different procedure is prescribed in chs. 23, 66, 345 and 778, or elsewhere, and such different procedures + See moreshall apply equally to the state, a county or a municipality regardless of any limitation contained therein.
|
Revenue flow |