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.
4 Results
| State | Citation | Description/Statute Name | Question | Brief answer | Language from the opinion | When does the case apply? | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Add to Dashboard
|
Arizona | 1989 Ariz. Op. Att'y Gen. 134 (1989) | Arizona-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? | The Arizona Constitution grants the Supreme Court the right to impose binding state-wide rules for procedural matters related to fines and fees. |
"The Arizona Supreme Court's rulemaking power is derived from Ariz. Const. art. VI, § 5 which gives the supreme court the “[p]ower to make rules relative to all procedural matters + See morein any court.” "
|
Enforcement |
|
Add to Dashboard
|
Alaska | Alaska Stat. Ann. § 12.55.051(j) | Enforcement of fines and restitution | Which fines and/or fees may be collected by a private vendor? | This has not been articulated by the court or by the Attorney General. Statutory law seems to indicate that any fine or fee can be collected by a private vendor |
(j) The Department of Law may enter into contracts on behalf of the state to carry out the collection procedures of this section. The Department of Law may adopt regulations + See morenecessary to carry out the collection procedures of this section, including the reimbursement of attorney fees and costs in appropriate cases.
|
Enforcement |
|
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
|
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 |