Below are the attorney general opinions that meet your search criteria.

13 Results

Export results to Excel

State Citation Description/Statute Name Question Brief answer Language from the opinion When does the case apply?
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

Virginia 2000 Va. Op. Att'y. Gen. (2000) Costs and fines dischargeable in bankruptcy Other applicable opinions
"Criminal costs, which may or may not be contingent upon sentence but are associated with conviction, and traffic fines are nondischargeable in Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings. Debt for restitution or
+ See more
criminal fine included in criminal sentence is nondischargeable in Chapter 13 bankruptcy; criminal fines not contingent upon sentence, traffic fines arising from traffic infractions, and civil traffic fines are dischargeable in Chapter 13 bankruptcies."
Enforcement
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

Indiana 2003 Ind. Op. Att'y Gen. No. 2 (Jan. 31, 2003) RE: Local Ordinances and State Laws What authority do county or municipal courts have to set fines or fees? Cities and towns may not enact local ordinances similar to state laws in order to generate revenue
The Home Rule Act expressly prohibits local units of government from adopting local ordinances which assign a penalty for an act that constitutes a crime or infraction under state statute.
+ See more
A state statute must be evaluated to determine if the statute deals comprehensively with a subject matter; local ordinances might not be preempted if a state statute does not deal comprehensively with a subject matter and there is room for supplemental local regulation. However, a city or town may not enact a local ordinance where there is an existing state statute dealing comprehensively with the subject matter and local law is considered preempted by state law.
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

Indiana 2010 Ind. Op. Att'y Gen. No. 1 (May 12, 2010) Re: Civil Forfeitures and the Common School Fund Other applicable opinions Civil forfeitures are not committed to the common school funds like criminal fines and fees under the state constitution
It is our opinion that Article 8, § 2 of the state constitution does not apply to forfeiture actions brought under Ind. Code ch. 34-24-1. Article 8 of the Indiana
+ See more
Constitution provides for the funding of the common school fund, part of which is derived “from the fines assessed for breaches of the penal laws of the State; and from all forfeitures which may accrue.” Art. 8, § 2. A proceeding under Indiana's forfeiture law is civil in nature, and it is only fines and forfeitures from criminal proceedings that must be paid into the common school fund.
Revenue flow
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

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 more
the 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 more
deprived 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
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

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 more
P.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
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

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 more
necessary to carry out the collection procedures of this section, including the reimbursement of attorney fees and costs in appropriate cases.
Enforcement
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

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 more
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."
Ability to pay
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

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 more
the 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
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

Alaska Alaska Const. art. IV, § 15; Alaska Stat. Ann. § 22.05.020(c); Alaska Stat. Ann. § 28.05.151(a) Rule-Making Power; Composition and general powers of supreme court; Citations for scheduled vehicle and traffic offenses What authority does the state supreme court have to impose binding state-wide rules on the imposition or collection of fees and fines?
The Alasaka Constitution allows the Supreme Court to promulgate rules governing practice and procedure. Furthermore, Alaska Statutory Law allows the Supreme Court to prescribe the fees which may be charged
+ See more
for legal services. Indeed, the Supreme Court can also determine which fines and fees may be collected without a court disposition
"The supreme court shall make and promulgate rules governing the administration of all courts. It shall make and promulgate rules governing practice and procedure in civil and criminal cases in
+ See more
all courts. These rules may be changed by the legislature by two-thirds vote of the members elected to each house." "The supreme court may prescribe by rule the fees to be charged by all courts for judicial services." "The supreme court shall determine by rule or order those motor vehicle and traffic offenses, except for offenses subject to a scheduled municipal fine, that are amenable to disposition without court appearance and shall establish a scheduled amount of bail, not to exceed fines prescribed by law, for each offense. A municipality shall determine by ordinance the municipal motor vehicle and traffic offenses that may be disposed of without court appearance and shall establish a fine schedule for each offense. "The supreme court shall determine by rule or order those motor vehicle and traffic offenses, except for offenses subject to a scheduled municipal fine, that are amenable to disposition without court appearance and shall establish a scheduled amount of bail, not to exceed fines prescribed by law, for each offense. A municipality shall determine by ordinance the municipal motor vehicle and traffic offenses that may be disposed of without court appearance and shall establish a fine schedule for each offense."
Fines and fees
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

Washington Wash. Att'y Gen. Op. 1993 NO. 11 (1993) Ability to pay - considered at imposition and collection of fines and fees Should ability to pay be considered when imposing fines or fees or only when collecting fines or fees? They must be considered both when imposing and collecting fines and fees
[A] county considering an ordinance authorizing a court to impose a multiple booking fee as part of a criminal sentence should heed constitutional considerations relating to the offender's ability to
+ See more
pay the fee. Some statutes providing for the repayment of costs incurred on behalf of a criminal defendant, also known as recoupment statutes, have been challenged as unconstitutional. The courts generally have upheld these statutes, provided that they contain certain safeguards. As set forth in Fuller v. Oregon, 417 U.S. 40, 40 L.Ed.2d 642, 94 S.Ct. 2116 (1974), and summarized in State v. Earls, 51 Wn.App. 192, 195–96, 752 P.2d 402 (1988), the safeguards are:(1) The requirement of repayment must not be mandatory;(2) Repayment may be imposed only upon convicted defendants;(3) Repayment may only be ordered if the defendant is or will be able to pay;(4) The financial resources of the defendant must be taken into consideration;(5) A repayment obligation may not be imposed if it appears there is no likelihood the defendant's indigency will end;(6) The convicted person must be permitted to petition the court for remission of the payment of costs or any unpaid portion thereof;(7) The convicted person cannot be held in contempt for failure to repay if the default was not attributable to an intentional refusal to obey the court order or a failure to make a good faith effort to make repayment.
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

Washington Wash. Att'y Gen. Op. 1993 NO. 11 (1993) Authority to set fines/fees What authority do county or municipal courts have to set fines or fees? Counties are given extensive freedoms to set fines and fees for municipal violations, but cannot do so in fields in which the state preempts
Counties have broad authority under article 11, section 11 of the state constitution to act in furtherance of their police power. That section provides: “Any county, city, town or township
+ See more
may make and enforce within its limits all such local police, sanitary and other regulations as are not in conflict with general laws.” The State Supreme Court has described this provision as follows: This is a direct delegation of the police power as ample within its limits as that possessed by the legislature itself. It requires no legislative sanction for its exercise so long as the subject-matter is local, and the regulation reasonable and consistent with the general laws. Bellingham v. Schampera, 57 Wn.2d 106, 109, 356 P.2d 292 (1960); see also Brown v. Yakima, 116 Wn.2d 556, 559, 807 P.2d 353 (1991).Under this provision, counties may enact ordinances regarding “all those measures which bear a reasonable and substantial relation to promotion of the general welfare of the people.” State v. Seattle, 94 Wn.2d 162, 165, 615 P.2d 461 (1980). County ordinances prescribing local offenses and punishments for them would constitute police power measures of the county under article 11, section 11 of the Washington Constitution. Such county ordinances may not, however, “conflict” with state laws. The courts have interpreted this to mean that counties may not legislate in a particular area when the state has preempted the field, or when the county legislation and state legislation on the same subject cannot be harmonized. Brown, 116 Wn.2d at 559.
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

Washington See answer for 8 above Washington-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? See answer for 8 above See answer for 8 above
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

Washington Not answered Washington-Attorney General opinion Under what circumstances does a conflict of interest in the imposition or enforcement of court debt violate state law? Not answered Not answered