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.
10 Results
State | Citation | Description/Statute Name | Question | Brief answer | Language from the opinion | When does the case apply? | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Add to Dashboard
|
Ohio | 1990 Ohio Op. Atty. Gen. No. 90-088 (Nov. 14 1990) | Fines and fees | Does allowing different municipalities to set their own indigency standards or fines/fees violate the equal protection afforded by the state’s constitution? | Indigency should be determined on a case-by-case basis, not through set standards |
A gleaning of the aforementioned authorities clearly reveals that there are no set criteria for determining whether an individual is indigent. Rather, the preferred approach is to determine indigency on + See morea case by case basis so as to accord attention to any and all factors tending to indicate an individual's financial condition. . . . [T]he the criteria for determining . . . whether an individual is indigent, include the ready availability of real or personal property owned; employment benefits; pensions; annuities; social security; unemployment compensation; inheritances; number and age of dependents; outstanding debts, obligations and liabilities; and any other relevant considerations concerning the financial condition of an individual.
|
Revenue flow |
Add to Dashboard
|
Ohio | no | Fines and fees | What authority does the state supreme court have to impose binding state-wide rules on the imposition or collection of fees and fines? |
This has not been considered by courts or the State AG. But the Ohio Supreme Court issues "bench cards" guiding the lower courts on how to implement fines. See, e.g., + See moreThe Supreme Court of Ohio, Office of Judicial Services, Collection of Fines and Court Costs (2014)
|
Revenue flow | |
Add to Dashboard
|
Alaska | Otton v. Zaborac, 525 P.2d 537, 538 (Alaska 1974) | Alaska-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?
|
Yes. For example, a defendant who is facing civil contempt must be guaranteed the right to counsel because of the "very real threat of incarceration." |
"Constitutional considerations lead us to the conclusion the defendant's interests will not be adequately protected without the assistance of appointed counsel. The Alaska Constitution provides that ‘(n)o person shall be + See moredeprived of . . . liberty . . . without due process of law.4 The federal constitution similarly provides that no state may deprive any person of liberty without due process. Mr. Otton's interest in freedom from restraint has constitutional dimensions. State action which infringes upon that interest must be in accordance with the requirements of due process."
|
Ability to pay |
Add to Dashboard
|
Alaska |
Jones v. State, No. A-2629, 1989 WL 1595378, at *1–2 (Alaska Ct. App. Feb. 1, 1989) (quoting Zimmerman v. State, 706 P.2d 343, 344 (Alaska App.1985); Karr v. State, 686 + See moreP.2d 1192, 1197 (Alaska 1984)); Alaska Stat. Ann. § 12.55.051
|
Alaska-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? | Indigency is determined by trial courts in Alaska. Trial courts are not municipal in nature, but are State courts. |
"Under AS 12.55.035, the trial court is under a mandatory duty to consider a defendant's earning capacity in connection with the imposition of any fine. The court's inquiry must be + See more“serious” and should include an analysis of any assets that the defendant presently owns, as well as his past and future earning capacity. A determination of a defendant's future earning capacity necessarily requires the court to make:preliminary findings of fact regarding [the defendant's] mental and physical health, [his] education, [his] job skills if any, the kinds of jobs which [he] has held in the past and is capable of performing in the future and the availability of such jobs in the communities in which [the defendant] will likely reside. Once these findings are made, the court is in a position to determine [the defendant's] likely future earnings and the extent to which those earnings will cover [his] likely future expenses for food, clothing and shelter and leave [him] a surplus out of which to pay restitution. The court must fix the amount of the fine and the terms of payment to fall within the realistic limits of the defendant's earning capacity. Failure to make the appropriate inquiry and findings requires automatic reversal and remand." " If, at a hearing under this subsection, the defendant proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant will be unable through good faith efforts to satisfy the order requiring payment of the fine or restitution, the court shall modify the order so that the defendant can pay the fine or restitution through good faith efforts. The court may reduce the fine ordered, change the payment schedule, or otherwise modify the order. The court may not reduce an order of restitution but may change the payment schedule."
|
Ability to pay |
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
|
Alaska | Alaska Stat. Ann. § 12.55.051 | Enforcement of fines and restitution | Who has the burden of proof in an ability to pay determination? What is the standard of proof required? | Defendant has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. |
"[U]nder this subsection, the defendant proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant will be unable through good faith efforts to satisfy the order requiring payment of the + See morefine or restitution, the court shall modify the order so that the defendant can pay the fine or restitution through good faith efforts. The court may reduce the fine ordered, change the payment schedule, or otherwise modify the order."
|
Ability to pay |
Add to Dashboard
|
Alaska | Alaska Stat. Ann. § 12.55.051; Dodge v. Municipality of Anchorage, 877 P.2d 270, 272 (Alaska Ct. App. 1994) | Alaska-Attorney General opinion | Should ability to pay be considered when imposing fines or fees or only when collecting fines or fees? | Statutory law and case law suggest that the ability to pay need not be determined until after imposition. |
"A defendant who has been sentenced to pay a fine or restitution may request a hearing regarding the defendant's ability to pay the fine or restitution at any time that + See morethe defendant is required to pay all or a portion of the fine or restitution." "The law in effect at the time of Dodge's sentencing imposed no duty upon the court to inquire into Dodge's ability to pay the fine imposed."
|
Ability to pay |
Add to Dashboard
|
Illinois | 1992 WL 469752 (Ill.A.G.); 1985 Ill. Atty. Gen. Op. 166 (Ill.A.G.), 1985 WL 68990; 1978 Ill. Atty. Gen. Op. 175 (Ill.A.G.), 1978 WL 17642 | Illinois-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? | Revenue flow | ||
Add to Dashboard
|
Minnesota | Mr. Richard T. Jessen Minn. Op. Atty. Gen. 1025B 1981 WL 157319 | Minnesota-Attorney General opinion | Other applicable oppinions | Municipalities and towns are entitled to at least half of the funds from fines and fees collected by the county clerk |
The crucial feature in the context of this statute is that, unlike the large number of special and limited purpose government units, a municipality, or a city, is a general + See morepurpose government unit. For example, the municipality is authorized by a wide range of statutes to engage in a variety of functions, including providing police protection and protecting the public health, safety, welfare and Morals. See; Minn. Stat. chs. 410 to 472 (1980). Review of the various local government units reveals that a town is the unit most similar to a municipality. To some extent, towns also possess traditional police powers and authority to provide law enforcement services. Minn. Stat. §§ 365.15; 367.03, subd. 3 (1980). Indeed, numerous towns are given the powers and authority of a statutory city. Minn. Stat. § 368.011 (1980). We therefore conclude that while the county is entitled to one-half of all such fines or penalties, the municipality or town in which a statutory violation is committed is entitled to the other half of such funds.
|
Revenue flow |
Add to Dashboard
|
Minnesota | Mr. D. Scott Ballou Minn. Op. Atty. Gen. 1025-B 1980 WL 119583 | Minnesota-Attorney General opinion | In most circumstances, the allocation of funds collected by fines and fees is based on the geographic location of the offense that gave rise to the fine or fee, |
The manner of disposition of fines and fees is based on the geographic location of the offense giving rise to the fee or fine and not on the law enforcement + See moreagency responsible for issuing the citation. The only exceptions provided by the statute occur when the Minnesota Highway Patrol issues the citation. See Minn. Stat. § 299D.03, subd. 5 (1978), or where the fines or fees were collected prior to August 1, 1975, see Minn. Stat. § 487.33, subd. 6 (1978). However, the fines and fees referred to in Minn. Stat. § 487.33, subd. 5 (1978) are limited to certain parking fines, which must be paid over in full each month to the municipality in which the parking violation occurred, and fines and penalties collected as a result of violations of a state statute, or ordinance, charter provision, rules or regulation of a city must be equally divided on a monthly basis.
In addition, monies collected as a result of a violation of an ordinance promulgated by a town board of supervisors or board of county commissioners shall be retained by the county treasurer pursuant to the last sentence of Minn. Stat. § 487.33, subd. 5 (1978).
|
Revenue flow |