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

4 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

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

+ Create New

South Carolina S.C.A.G. Oct. 8, 2012 (informal opinion) Civil contempt
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?
No - the rationale for punishment based on contempt proceedings rather than criminal proceedings is different
The principal purpose of criminal contempt is punishment. In civil contempt, however, the contemnors "carry the keys of prison in their own pockets" as the contempt serves to secure "compliance
+ See more
with judicial decrees." 287 S.E.2d at 919. The Court concluded that "[t]he conditional nature of the imprisonment, based entirely upon appellant's refusal to pay respondent's expenses, justified the civil contempt proceeding without a jury trial.
Enforcement
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

South Carolina S.C.A.G. July 15, 1996 (informal opinion) Setting fees Does allowing different municipalities to set their own indigency standards or fines/fees violate the equal protection afforded by the state’s constitution? Not answered as to indigency - however, municipalities cannot set their own fees not in accordance with State statutes
it is the opinion of this Office that all fee schedules used in the various counties based upon ordinances and special statutes are unconstitutional and that the only fee schedule
+ See more
available for the services enumerated is to be found under South Carolina Code Section 27-53 (1976) [replaced by Act No. 164 of 1979]
Fines and fees
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

South Carolina Robert L. McCrudy, S.C.A.G. Dec. 14, 1999 (informal opinion) Collection by private vendor Which fines and/or fees may be collected by a private vendor? Collection of criminal fines and fees are the job of the magistrate
With respect to the physical collection and handling ofpublic monies such as fines, restitution, etc. such should be done exclusively by the court and its officers rather than by the
+ See more
company, in the absence of legislative authorization therefore.
Enforcement