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

9 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

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 more
probation 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 more
be 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
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

Idaho Guideline 2/15/1979 Guideline 2/15/1979 Can a sheriff collect fees owed to him directly from criminal defendants? No
...we strongly question whether a defendant could be assessedthe costs of making the arrest or transporting him as a prisoner. Assessing costs of serving subpoenas might be upheld if the defendant
+ See more
is not indigent. We do not question the power of the court to collect the statutory $7 .50 under * 3 1 -3201A ( b).
Fines and fees
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

Texas
Tex. Att'y Gen Opinion Op. No. JM-10 (1983),"""Inability to pay fees is an affirmative defense to the failure to pay them.""",ability to pay,,transparencyShould ability to pay be considered when imposing
+ See more
fines or fees or only when collecting fines or fees?,,,,,,fines What authority do county or municipal courts have to set fines or fees?,Municipal courts have authority to sets fines and fees so long as they do not exceed the maximum fine or fee permitted by the relevant statute. ,Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. GA-0593 (2008)
court may impose . . . an increase in the defendant's fine, up to a total fine that does not exceed the maximum fine for the offense for which the
+ See more
defendant was sentenced
Who has the burden of proof in an ability to pay determination? What is the standard of proof required? Burden of proof is on the defendant by preponderance of the evidence. But see Rusk v. State, 440 S.W.3d 694, 702 (Tex. App. 2013) fines and fees
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

Texas
Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. JM-176 (1984),"""Proceedings in contempt cases should proceed as near as practical to criminal cases.""",ability to pay,,enforcementDoes allowing different municipalities to set their own indigency standards or
+ See more
fines/fees violate the equal protection afforded by the state’s constitution? ,"Possibly. In Texas, a law that fixes a greater punishment in one county than another is violative of Equal Protection, so a law allowing for different levels of protection or different penalty fines may also violate Equal Protection. ",Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. DM-123 (1992); Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. JM-1120 (1989),"""costs imposed in misdemeanor cases involving state criminal statutes must be uniform statewide . . . a law that fixes a greater punishment in one county than in other counties for the violation of a state law cannot be upheld and is in contravention of constitutional inhibitions, both State and Federal""; ""Assessment of a minimum $50 fine in every Class C misdemeanor hot check case in order to defray the cost of an additional employee would result in the penalty for a state defined crime to be different in Jim Wells County than it is in other counties and would violate both due process and equal protection constitutional rights.""",fines and fees,,ability to pay Which fines and/or fees may be collected by a private vendor? ,Any fines or fees ordered to be paid by a court,Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. JC-0516 (2002)
The debts that may be collected [are] those which have been ordered to be paid by a court.
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?
Contempt case require the same or as near as practicable due process protections as criminal cases. revenue flow
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

Texas Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. JC-0516 (2002) "The debts that may be collected [are] those which have been ordered to be paid by a court." Which fines and/or fees may be collected by a private vendor? Any fines or fees ordered to be paid by a court revenue flow
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

Texas Tex. Att'y Gen Opinion Op. No. JM-10 (1983) "Inability to pay fees is an affirmative defense to the failure to pay them." Who has the burden of proof in an ability to pay determination? What is the standard of proof required? Burden of proof is on the defendant by preponderance of the evidence. But see Rusk v. State, 440 S.W.3d 694, 702 (Tex. App. 2013) ability to pay
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

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

+ Create New

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 more
agency 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