Criminal Justice Policy Program at Harvard Law School
50-State Criminal Justice Debt Reform Builder Bringing transparency to areas of significant legal complexity.
50-State Criminal Justice Debt Reform Builder Bringing transparency to areas of significant legal complexity.
Attorney General Opinions
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
When does this apply
Below are the attorney general opinions that meet your search criteria.
11 Results
| State | Citation | Description/Statute Name | Question | Brief answer | Language from the opinion | When does the case apply? | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Add to Dashboard
|
Michigan | Mich. Op. Att'y Gen. (1998) Opinion No. 6995 | Michigan-Attorney General opinion | Other applicable opinions |
A prosecutor is not authorized by law to require a criminal defendant to pay costs as a condition for reducing or dismissing criminal charges pending against the defendant. A court + See moremay, however, when sentencing a convicted defendant, impose such costs as are permitted by statute, including those permissible costs agreed to between the prosecutor and the defendant as part of a plea bargain.
|
Criminal prosecutions are governed by the Michigan Code of Criminal Procedure (Code), 1927 PA 175, MCL 760.1 et seq; MSA 28.841 et seq. The Code, at Chapter XI, MCL 771.1 + See moreet seq; MSA 28.1131 et seq, authorizes the imposition of costs in criminal cases. If a defendant has been found guilty, and if it appears to the satisfaction of the court that the defendant is an appropriate candidate, the court may place the defendant on probation. Section 1. As a condition of probation, the court may require the defendant to pay costs. Section 3(2)(c). Such costs, however, are limited to expenses specifically incurred in prosecuting the defendant, in providing legal assistance to the defendant, and in providing probation supervision of the defendant. Section 3(4).
|
Fines and fees |
|
Add to Dashboard
|
Michigan | Mich. Op. Att'y Gen. (2008) Opinion No. 7217 | Michigan-Attorney General opinion | The use of funds from criminal fines and assessments are restricted by provisions of the Michigan State Constitution. |
However, the Legislature should be aware of the limitations imposed by Const 1963, art 8, § 9, which requires that fines assessed for any breach of the penal laws be + See moreused to support libraries. If excess revenue in the Crime Victim's Rights Fund is used for purposes other than to enforce and pay for the crime victim rights enumerated in art 1, § 24, the use could face scrutiny to determine if the assessments conflict with art 8, § 9 or other constitutional provisions. . . . Therefore, to the extent that the Legislature intends to authorize uses of the Fund to pay for the constitutionally enumerated crime victim's rights, it must consider whether each proposed use is within the language of art 1, § 24, given the principles of constitutional construction that guide the Court.
|
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
|
Texas |
Tex. Att'y Gen Opinion Op. No. JM-10 (1983),"""Inability to pay fees is an affirmative defense to the failure to pay them.""",ability to pay,,transparencyShould ability to pay be considered when imposing + See morefines or fees or only when collecting fines or fees?,,,,,,fines
What authority do county or municipal courts have to set fines or fees?,Municipal courts have authority to sets fines and fees so long as they do not exceed the maximum fine or fee permitted by the relevant statute. ,Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. GA-0593 (2008)
|
court may impose . . . an increase in the defendant's fine, up to a total fine that does not exceed the maximum fine for the offense for which the + See moredefendant was sentenced
|
Who has the burden of proof in an ability to pay determination? What is the standard of proof required? | Burden of proof is on the defendant by preponderance of the evidence. But see Rusk v. State, 440 S.W.3d 694, 702 (Tex. App. 2013) | fines and fees | |
|
Add to Dashboard
|
Texas |
Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. JM-176 (1984),"""Proceedings in contempt cases should proceed as near as practical to criminal cases.""",ability to pay,,enforcementDoes allowing different municipalities to set their own indigency standards or + See morefines/fees violate the equal protection afforded by the state’s constitution? ,"Possibly. In Texas, a law that fixes a greater punishment in one county than another is violative of Equal Protection, so a law allowing for different levels of protection or different penalty fines may also violate Equal Protection. ",Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. DM-123 (1992); Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. JM-1120 (1989),"""costs imposed in misdemeanor cases involving state criminal statutes must be uniform statewide . . . a law that fixes a greater punishment in one county than in other counties for the violation of a state law cannot be upheld and is in contravention of constitutional inhibitions, both State and Federal""; ""Assessment of a minimum $50 fine in every Class C misdemeanor hot check case in order to defray the cost of an additional employee would result in the penalty for a state defined crime to be different in Jim Wells County than it is in other counties and would violate both due process and equal protection constitutional rights.""",fines and fees,,ability to pay
Which fines and/or fees may be collected by a private vendor? ,Any fines or fees ordered to be paid by a court,Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. JC-0516 (2002)
|
The debts that may be collected [are] those which have been ordered to be paid by a court. |
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?
|
Contempt case require the same or as near as practicable due process protections as criminal cases. | revenue flow | |
|
Add to Dashboard
|
Texas | Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. JC-0516 (2002) | "The debts that may be collected [are] those which have been ordered to be paid by a court." | Which fines and/or fees may be collected by a private vendor? | Any fines or fees ordered to be paid by a court | revenue flow | |
|
Add to Dashboard
|
Texas | Tex. Att'y Gen Opinion Op. No. JM-10 (1983) | "Inability to pay fees is an affirmative defense to the failure to pay them." | Who has the burden of proof in an ability to pay determination? What is the standard of proof required? | Burden of proof is on the defendant by preponderance of the evidence. But see Rusk v. State, 440 S.W.3d 694, 702 (Tex. App. 2013) | ability to pay |