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.
5 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
|
Arkansas | Opinion No. 96-208 | Imprisonment for failure to pay - double jeopardy | Other applicable opinions |
No, it does not constitute double jeopardy to imprison a person for failure to pay a fine when the person has already had his probation revoked, and has served a + See moreterm of imprisonment, for failing to satisfy, as a condition of his probation, his obligation to pay the fine -- if the person is not indigent.
|
"such a course of action is authorized by law and does not violate U.S. Const. amend. 5 or Ark. Const. art. 2, + See more § 8, the constitutional provisionsprohibiting the placing of a person in jeopardy more than once for the same offense."
|
Enforcement |
Add to Dashboard
|
Arkansas | Opinion No. 2008-153 | district court discretion to refuse probation sentence |
Q2) Does a circuit or district court have discretion to refuse to sentence a defendant to probation pursuant to a plea agreement where the only stated reason for rejection of + See moreprobation is due to an indigent defendant's inability to pay court costs prior to the entry of the plea of guilty? Answer) No
|
I believe a court's refusal to consider probation as a sentencing option purely because of a defendant's indigency -- which is what your question appears to contemplate -- might well + See morebe subject to challenge as a violation of the Equal Protection guarantees set forth in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and in article 2, §§ 2 and 3 of the Arkansas Constitution.
|
Ability to pay |