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.
13 Results
State | Citation | Description/Statute Name | Question | Brief answer | Language from the opinion | When does the case apply? | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Add to Dashboard
|
Louisiana | Op. Att'y Gen. No. 97-237 (June 18, 1997) | Uniform eligibility criteria for indigency standards | Does allowing different municipalities to set their own indigency standards or fines/fees violate the equal protection afforded by the state’s constitution? | Unclear, but different municipalities are required by statute to have the same standards |
(d) uniform eligibility criteria for determining indigency and the eligibility of defendants to qualify for indigent defender representation at the district and state level;(citing language from statute creating the Louisiana + See moreDefense Board)
|
Ability to pay |
Add to Dashboard
|
Louisiana | Op. Att'y Gen. No. 95-449 (Nov. 8, 1995) | Collection contracts with private vendors | Which fines and/or fees may be collected by a private vendor? | no stated limit |
You have requested our opinion as to whether it is permissible for the Sheriff, with the formal approval of the District Court, to enter into such an agreement. If so, + See moreyou ask whether the public bid laws apply in procuring the services of a collection agency. We have reviewed the constitutional and statutory provisions relating to the powers and duties of sheriffs and can find nothing that would prohibit the Sheriff from entering into such an agreement. Our opinion is predicated upon the concurrence to the agreement of all parties enumerated hereinabove, and a formal order of the District Court Judge authorizing the contract and the percentage and/or fee to be retained by the collection agency. As discussed, this opinion is limited to only those fines that have been previously assessed, are currently delinquent and which you have been unable to collect. While a contract for the services of a collection agency are not required to be publicly bid by the Sheriff, we recommend that you solicit several proposals to ensure the confection of a contract that is most favorable to your office.
|
Revenue flow |
Add to Dashboard
|
Louisiana | Op. Att'y Gen. No. 83-183 (June 17, 1983) | Court's authority to impose costs | Other applicable opinions |
It is well settled that the recovery and allowance of costs in criminal prosecutions is dependent entirely on statutory provisions. Absent statutory authority, a court has no power to award + See morecosts against a defendant on conviction. See C. J. S. Costs Section 435, 437.
Op. Att'y Gen. No. 83-183 (June 17, 1983)
|
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
|
Utah | Normal G. Angus, Informal Opinion No. 87-06, 1987 WL 272559, at *2-3 (July 15, 1987) | Informal Opinion No. 87-06 |
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?
|
Unclear. Bail forfeiture proceedings do not provide the same safeguards. I am unsure if this can be extrapolated to collection proceedings. |
Bail forfeiture actions are civil in nature; criminal procedure safeguards are not implicated
.In comparing the two approaches to nonappearancebail forfeiture versus contemptit becomes readily apparent that the contempt process presents + See morefewer obstacles of statutory construction and would be procedurally easier to effectuate.
|
Enforcement |
Add to Dashboard
|
Utah | Ms. Faye Price, Informal Opinion No. 79-51, 1979 WL 32606, at *1 (Feb. 15, 1979) | Informal Opinion No. 79-51, | Does allowing different municipalities to set their own indigence standards or fines/fees violate the equal protection afforded by the states constitution? |
Possibly. Ability to pay should be consistently applied in reference to statute that requires parents and guardians to pay for the cost and maintenance of State Training School residents. Therefore, + See moreit is possible that determining ability to pay when assessing criminal justice debt presents same constitutional issues.
|
there could be constitutional difficulties arise from the manner in which it is applied if great care is not taken to insure that the determination of financial responsibility is made + See moreon a strictly consistent and rational basis.
|
Ability to pay |
Add to Dashboard
|
Utah | Ronald W. Thompson, Informal Opinion No. 77-150, 1978 WL 25972, at *1 (Feb. 7, 1978) | Informal Opinion No. 77-150 | see above | see above |
There is no requirement in the statute that there be a judicial determination of indigence, and it does not appear that a county could properly limit its payments to persons + See morewho have been judicially determined indigent.
|
Ability to pay |