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.
18 Results
State | Citation | Description/Statute Name | Question | Brief answer | Language from the opinion | When does the case apply? | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Add to Dashboard
|
Ohio | 1990 Ohio Op. Atty. Gen. No. 90-088 (Nov. 14 1990) | Fines and fees | Does allowing different municipalities to set their own indigency standards or fines/fees violate the equal protection afforded by the state’s constitution? | Indigency should be determined on a case-by-case basis, not through set standards |
A gleaning of the aforementioned authorities clearly reveals that there are no set criteria for determining whether an individual is indigent. Rather, the preferred approach is to determine indigency on + See morea case by case basis so as to accord attention to any and all factors tending to indicate an individual's financial condition. . . . [T]he the criteria for determining . . . whether an individual is indigent, include the ready availability of real or personal property owned; employment benefits; pensions; annuities; social security; unemployment compensation; inheritances; number and age of dependents; outstanding debts, obligations and liabilities; and any other relevant considerations concerning the financial condition of an individual.
|
Revenue flow |
Add to Dashboard
|
Ohio | no | fines and fees | Which fines and/or fees may be collected by a private vendor? |
Neither the courts nor the State AG has considered this question. However, the Ohio Revised Code provides that both misdemeanor fines, § 2928.18(F) and felony fines, § 2928.28(G)(1), may be + See morecollected by private vendors
|
Transparency | |
Add to Dashboard
|
Ohio | no | ability to pay | Who has the burden of proof in an ability to pay determination? What is the standard of proof required? | See Case Law: Liming v. Damos, 979 N.E.2d 297 (Ohio 2012) | Fines and fees | |
Add to Dashboard
|
Ohio | no | Ohio-Attorney General opinion | Should ability to pay be considered when imposing fines or fees or only when collecting fines or fees? | See Case Law: State v. Meyer, 706 N.E.2d 378, 380 (1997); Ohio Rev. Code § 2947.14 | ability to pay | Fines and fees |
Add to Dashboard
|
Ohio | 2012 Ohio Op. Att'y Gen. No. 2012-039 (Nov. 14, 2012) | fines and fees | What authority do county or municipal courts have to set fines or fees? | County courts can use their fining power to fund various projects, programs, and services of the court |
Although a county court has authority to use a special projects fund established under R.C. 1907.24(B)(1) to finance community service programs, nothing in the Ohio Constitution, Revised Code, Ohio Rules + See moreof Criminal Procedure, or Rules of Superintendence for the Courts of Ohio directs the manner in which a county court may use moneys in a special projects fund to provide such financing. This means that the judges of a county court have the discretion and implied power to use special projects fund moneys in whatever manner is reasonably necessary to make community service programs available to persons who are convicted of, or plead guilty to, a misdemeanor.
|
Fines and fees |
Add to Dashboard
|
Ohio | no | Fines and fees | What authority does the state supreme court have to impose binding state-wide rules on the imposition or collection of fees and fines? |
This has not been considered by courts or the State AG. But the Ohio Supreme Court issues "bench cards" guiding the lower courts on how to implement fines. See, e.g., + See moreThe Supreme Court of Ohio, Office of Judicial Services, Collection of Fines and Court Costs (2014)
|
Revenue flow | |
Add to Dashboard
|
Ohio | no | no | Under what circumstances does a conflict of interest in the imposition or enforcement of court debt violate state law? | This has not been considered to date | ||
Add to Dashboard
|
California | 65 Cal. Op. Att'y Gen. 581 (1982) | "May a penalty assessment be levied against a criminal defendant who does not have a present ability to pay such assessment?" |
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?
|
Indigent defendants cannot be imprisoned solely because they cannot pay a penalty. However, when indigent defendants refuse or fail to meet the terms of an alternative option, they can be + See moreimprisoned, as the court sees them the same as a non-indigent defendant.
|
The effect of Antazo was to bar a trial judge from sending a defendant to jail or prison solely because he was unable to pay the monetary penalty. (In re + See moreSiegel (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 843, 846.) However, as Antazo makes clear, such a penalty may nevertheless be imposed upon an indigent in certain circumstances (3 Cal.3d 100, 116):‘[O]ur holding is simply that an indigent who would pay his fine if he could, must be given an option comparable to an offender who is not indigent. When the indigent offender refuses to avail himself of such alternatives at the inception, or defaults or otherwise fails to meet the conditions of the particular alternative which is offered him without a showing of reasonable excuse, the indigent offender becomes in the eyes of the court exactly the same as the contumacious offender who is not indigent. When either of these conditions obtain the offender's indigency ceases to be dispositive and he may, consistently with the mandate of the equal protection clause, be relegated to ‘working out’ his fine by imprisonment.' 65 Cal. Op. Att'y Gen. 581 (1982).
|
Ability to pay |
Add to Dashboard
|
California | 66 Cal. Op. Att'y Gen. 440 (1983). | Personal use of fines and fees prohibited | Under what circumstances does a conflict of interest in the imposition or enforcement of court debt violate state law? | Judges cannot receive fines or fees for personal use. |
Article VI, section 17, of the California Constitution, provides: “A judge of a court of record may not practice law and during the term for which the judge was selected + See moreis ineligible for public employment or public office other than judicial employment or judicial office. A judge of the superior or municipal court may, however, become eligible for election to other public office by taking a leave of absence without pay prior to filing a declaration of candidacy. Acceptance of the public office is a resignation from the office of judge. “A judicial officer may not receive fines or fees for personal use.” 66 Cal. Op. Att'y Gen. 440 (1983).
|
Revenue flow |
Add to Dashboard
|
Nevada | 1987 Nev. Op. Att'y Gen. 29 (1987) | Execution of sentence and fine | Should ability to pay be considered when imposing fines or fees or only when collecting fines or fees? | court hearing must be held to determine a criminal defendant's ability to pay, before a criminal fine may be converted to an additional term of imprisonment. | under Nevada law a court hearing must be held to determine a criminal defendant's ability to pay, before a criminal fine may be converted to an additional term of imprisonment. | Ability to pay |
Add to Dashboard
|
Nevada | 1993 Nev. Op. Att'y Gen. 102 (1993) | Fines, judgments, judges | What authority do county or municipal courts have to set fines or fees? | Courts may, in the exercise of their judgment, set fines and fees. |
NRS 244.207, which authorizes counties to establish a collection division to collect fees and monetary sanctions imposed by courts that are ultimately owed to the county when collected, does not + See moreviolate Nevada's separation of powers provision. Although all collection efforts can be deferred by the courts, the legislative intent underlying NRS 244.207(1)(f) is to not impede collection efforts pending court rulings at any level. There is nothing in this statutory provision which impedes the courts in the exercise of their inherent judicial power to enforce their judgments and orders. Therefore, NRS 244.207 is constitutional.
|
Fines and fees |
Add to Dashboard
|
Nevada | 1987 Nev. Op. Att'y Gen. 29 (1987) | Criminal law - execution of sentence of imprisonment and fine | Other applicable opinions |
District Attorney may collect fines and fees when he prosecuted the case, attorney general may collect fines and fees when the attorney general's office prosecuted the case, and the Department + See moreof Prisons may only colelct fines and fees only when specifically granted the authority to do so by law.
|
Nevada statutes presently provide two methods for enforcement and collection of a criminal fine. See Nev.Rev.Stat. §§ 176.065 and 176.275. In both cases, the district attorney has authority to proceed + See moreto collect the fine on a criminal judgment where the district attorney has been the prosecutor. On the other hand, there is no clear authority in the office of the attorney general to undertake any action to collect the fines which have been imposed in criminal cases prosecuted by a district attorney. The attorney general would have authority to take action to enforce fines in cases prosecuted by the attorney general. See Nev.Rev.Stat. § 228.125. Similarly, the Department of Prisons has no specific authority to collect fines through deductions from wages or other property of offenders, or to institute any action against an offender to obtain the payment of a fine. The department is given specific authority to collect only certain debts owed by inmates, such as restitution or family support. See Nev.Rev.Stat. § 209.346 and 209.4811-209.4843; 209.352. Criminal fines are not included as a debt which may be collected by the Department of Prisons. This specific grant of authority to collect only certain debts implies a lack of authority to collect others. See Galloway v. Truesdell, 83 Nev. 13, 26, 422 P.2d 237 (1967). .
|
Revenue flow |
Add to Dashboard
|
Nevada | 1984 Nev. Op. Att'y Gen. 35 (1984) | Constitutional law - evidence-criminal procedure | Only nonindigent persons may be the subject of recoupment measures |
Where the legislature provides an express statutory system for recoupment of litigation costs from a convicted defendant the courts will generally enforce these provisions despite constitutional challenges. An implicit condition + See morefor the imposition of costs upon the convicted offender is that only nonindigent persons can be the subject of recoupment measures.
These statutes do not have a chilling effect on the exercise of other constitutional rights under the fifth and sixth amendments.
|
Ability to pay | |
Add to Dashboard
|
Nevada | 1987 Nev. Op. Att'y Gen. 29 (1987) | Criminal law - execution of sentence of imprisonment and fine |
District Attorney may collect fines and fees when he prosecuted the case, attorney general may collect fines and fees when the attorney general's office prosecuted the case, and the Department + See moreof Prisons may only collect fines and fees only when specifically granted the authority to do so by law.
|
Nevada statutes presently provide two methods for enforcement and collection of a criminal fine. See Nev.Rev.Stat. §§ 176.065 and 176.275. In both cases, the district attorney has authority to proceed + See moreto collect the fine on a criminal judgment where the district attorney has been the prosecutor. On the other hand, there is no clear authority in the office of the attorney general to undertake any action to collect the fines which have been imposed in criminal cases prosecuted by a district attorney. The attorney general would have authority to take action to enforce fines in cases prosecuted by the attorney general. See Nev.Rev.Stat. § 228.125. Similarly, the Department of Prisons has no specific authority to collect fines through deductions from wages or other property of offenders, or to institute any action against an offender to obtain the payment of a fine. The department is given specific authority to collect only certain debts owed by inmates, such as restitution or family support. See Nev.Rev.Stat. § 209.346 and 209.4811-209.4843; 209.352. Criminal fines are not included as a debt which may be collected by the Department of Prisons. This specific grant of authority to collect only certain debts implies a lack of authority to collect others. See Galloway v. Truesdell, 83 Nev. 13, 26, 422 P.2d 237 (1967). .
|
Fines and fees | |
Add to Dashboard
|
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 morepay 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, 19596, 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.
|
|
Add to Dashboard
|
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 moremay 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.
|
|
Add to Dashboard
|
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 | |
Add to Dashboard
|
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 |