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.
5 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
|
Kansas | Kan. Atty. Gen. Op. No. 95-101, 1995 WL 643346 | Courts--District Courts--District Judges; Power and Authority; Contingency Fee Contract to Collect Court Costs, Fines, Restitution and Attorney Fees | Which fines and/or fees may be collected by a private vendor? | A district court does not have the inherent power to contract with a collection agency to collect unpaid court costs, fines, attorney fees, and restitution. |
"[W]hile the court may use the state setoff program, it is our opinion that the court does not have the inherent power to contract with a private collection agency to + See morecollect these debts...Contracting with a collection agency to collect debts owed to the state, the county and crime victims is not associated with managing a court's affairs nor is it necessary to achieve an orderly and expeditious disposition of cases. Court costs and restitution are civil judgments and the state, the county and the crime victim may choose to pursue other collection alternatives which a court initiated contract may foreclose. For example, the state, through its department of administration, and the county may want to open the bidding process for collection services. As far as restitution is concerned, the idea behind it is to make the crime victim whole. State v. Hinckley, 13 Kan. App. 2d 417, 419 (1989). Laws enacted in 1995 suggest that the collection of restitution is a private right belonging to the crime victim by giving the latter the ability to file the award as a civil judgment and requiring the victim to credit any amount received from the restitution award against any subsequent civil recovery. L. 1995, ch. 257, § 9-12. Allowing the district court to pay a portion of the restitution award as a collection fee affects the victim's right to collect the entire amount and may reduce the amount a victim could recover against the convicted criminal."
|
Enforcement |
Add to Dashboard
|
Kansas | Kan. Att'y Gen. Op. No. 84-25 (Mar. 20, 1984) | Criminal ProcedureCosts in Criminal CasesLiability for Costs | What authority do county or municipal courts have to set fines or fees? |
A district magistrate or municipal court judge may not assess a defendant for "room and board" costs associated with his or her confinement in a city or county jail, unless + See morethe legislature enacts a statute so providing.
|
it is our opinion that there is no statutory authority whereby a district magistrate judge or municipal court judge may assess a defendant for room and board costs associated with his or her + See moreconfinement in a city or county jail. Although what has been said above is dispositive of the question raised, we are impelled to note that, where the legislature enacts a statute so providing, the state or a subdivision thereof may initiate proceedings against a prisoner for reimbursement of the expenses attributable to his or her incarceration. See 72 C.J.S., Prisons § 26(e); 139 A.L.R. 1028; McAuliffe v. Carlson, 377 F.Supp. 896, 900 (1974).
|
Fines and fees |
Add to Dashboard
|
Wisconsin | 1995 WL 264119 (Wis.A.G.) | Forfeitures | What authority does the state supreme court have to impose binding state-wide rules on the imposition or collection of fees and fines? | Unclear with regard to fines and fees, but uniformity regarding the recovery of forfeitures. |
Section 799.01 provides in part:
(b) Forfeitures. Actions to recover forfeitures except as a different procedure is prescribed in chs. 23, 66, 345 and 778, or elsewhere, and such different procedures + See moreshall apply equally to the state, a county or a municipality regardless of any limitation contained therein.
|
Revenue flow |