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.
11 Results
State | Citation | Description/Statute Name | Question | Brief answer | Language from the opinion | When does the case apply? | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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
|
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 moreprobation 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 morebe 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 | |
Add to Dashboard
|
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 moreis 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 |
Add to Dashboard
|
West Virginia | W. Va. Code §48-1-304 | W.V. Code |
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?
|
In the case of a charge of contempt based upon the failure of the defendant to pay alimony, child support or separate maintenance, if the court or jury finds that + See morethe defendant did not pay because he was financially unable to pay, the defendant may not be imprisoned on charges of contempt of court.
|
||
Add to Dashboard
|
West Virginia |
(1) State v. Stamm, 222 W. Va. 276, 278, 664 S.E.2d 161, 163 (2008)
(2) State ex rel. Zirkle v. Fox, 203 W. Va. 668, 669, 510 S.E.2d 502, 503 (1998)
(3) + See moreW. Va. Code Ann. § 61-11A-5
|
Case Law / W.V. Code | Who has the burden of proof in an ability to pay determination? What is the standard of proof required? |
(1) In criminal failure to meet obligation to minor (W. Va. Code § 61-5-29), the State has the burden of proof and the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. (2)However, + See morein civil contempt cases, if contemnor alleges financial inability to pay, he bears the burden of proving such inability to comply with a court mandate in order to avoid imprisonment. (3)Finally, in restitution determinations, the burden is on the defendant and the standard is a preponderance of the evidence.
|
Where a contemnor alleges financial inability to pay in a civil contempt proceeding, he bears the burden of proving such inability to comply with a court mandate in order to + See moreavoid imprisonment.
|
Ability to pay |
Add to Dashboard
|
West Virginia | (1)State v. Murrell, 201 W.Va. 648, 499 S.E.2d 870 (1997)(2) W. Va. Code §50-3-2. | Case Law | Should ability to pay be considered when imposing fines or fees or only when collecting fines or fees? |
No. Ability to pay does not have to be considered when imposing fines or fees; certain fines and fees are required by law to be imposed (see, e.g., W. Va. + See moreCode §50-3-2.)
|
“An individual is not excused from the imposition of the maximum sentence allowed under a statute simply because he is indigent, even if that sentence includes the imposition of fines + See morepursuant to statute.”
|
Ability to pay |
Add to Dashboard
|
West Virginia | W. Va. Code §8-10-1, 2; W. Va. Code § 62-4-16. | W.V. Code | What authority do county or municipal courts have to set fines or fees? |
Municipal courts have power to impose fines, penalties and cost when not otherwise provided by charter provision or general law. However, municipal judges may substitute community service in lieu of + See moresentence of incarceration or imposition of fine.
|
Fines and fees | |
Add to Dashboard
|
West Virginia | W. Va. Const. art. VIII, § 3 | State Constitution | What authority does the state supreme court have to impose binding state-wide rules on the imposition or collection of fees and fines? | West Virginia's Constitution allows the Court of Appeals to impose binding state-wide rules. No on point Attorney General Opinion. |
“The court shall have power to promulgate rules for all cases and proceedings, civil and criminal, for all of the courts of the State relating to writs, warrants, process, practice + See moreand procedure, which shall have the force and effect of law.”
|
Enforcement |
Add to Dashboard
|
West Virginia | W. Va. Code § 7-8-14(c) | W.V. Code | Other applicable opinions |
“A defendant who has been sentenced to pay costs and who is not in willful default in the payment of the costs may at any time petition the sentencing court + See morefor remission of the payment of costs or of any unpaid portion of the costs. If it appears to the satisfaction of the court that payment of the amount due will impose manifest hardship on the defendant or the defendant's family or dependents, the court may excuse payment of all or part of the amount due in costs, or modify the method of payment.”
|
||
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 |