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.
19 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
|
Florida | AGO 99-03 | Municipality, contract with collection agency | Which fines and/or fees may be collected by a private vendor? | Liens (at least) | A municipality may enter into an agreement with a collection agency to compromise code enforcement board liens and pursue collection through litigation. | Enforcement |
Add to Dashboard
|
Florida | AGO 2008-47 | Courts, funds to renovate courthouse tower/café | Other applicable opinions |
the tower of the Sarasota County Courthouse as an integral structural component of the courthouse facility may be renovated using funds derived from section 318.18(13), Florida Statutes. Moreover, where the + See morecounty has made the decision to include a café in the county courthouse facility for use by court personnel and the general public, revenue collected pursuant to section 318.18(13), Florida Statutes, to fund court facilities may be used for the renovation of such space.
|
Revenue flow | |
Add to Dashboard
|
Florida | AGO 2008-46 | Counties -- Court Costs | Other applicable opinions |
Accordingly, it is my opinion that revenues generated by section 939.185, Florida Statutes, may be used to fund an alternative sanctions coordinator position created pursuant to sections 984.09 and 985.037, + See moreFlorida Statutes. Moreover, it is ultimately within the countyâs discretion whether to fund a "local requirement" designated by the chief judge of the circuit.
|
Revenue flow | |
Add to Dashboard
|
Florida | AGO 2007-52 | Clerks of Court, debts referred to collection agent | Other applicable opinions |
In light of the language of sections 28.246 and 28.35, Florida Statutes, it is my opinion that the clerk of court is not authorized to charge a fee to the + See morecollection agent or attorney for support services provided by the clerk when an unpaid amount owed to the clerk is referred to an agent for collection. Rather, any administrative support costs incurred by the clerk after referring unpaid fines and fees for collection should most appropriately be paid from "filing fees, service charges, court costs, and fines" as provided in section 28.35(4)(a), Florida Statutes.
|
Revenue flow | |
Add to Dashboard
|
Florida | AGO 2002-61 | Additional $2 cost for criminal justice education | Other applicable opinions |
Thus, this office concluded that the additional costs collected under section 943.25(13), Florida Statutes (1993), could only be used for courses that relate directly to criminal justice education and training + See morecourses and may not be used to fund general education for law enforcement officers, except in those instances where completion of general education courses is a requirement for successful completion of a criminal justice degree program.
|
Fines and fees | |
Add to Dashboard
|
Florida | AGO 2002-10 | Local governments' assessment of court costs | Other applicable opinions |
Accordingly, it is my opinion that the assessment authorized in section 938.15, Florida Statutes, is payable to the county or municipality by an individual who has been convicted of a + See moreviolation of the respective county or municipal ordinance and the court has included payment of the assessment in its order.
|
Fines and fees | |
Add to Dashboard
|
Florida | AGO 2001-40 | Teen court, mandatory court cost assessment | Other applicable opinions |
In sum:
1. Section 938.19, Florida Statutes, does not authorize the county to choose the offenses for which the $3 assessment authorized by section 938.19, Florida Statutes, may be imposed; rather, + See morethe statute specifies those offenses for which the assessment will be imposed.
2. Section 938.19, Florida Statutes, requires that funds received from the $3 assessment be deposited into an account specifically for the operation and administration of the teen court and does not authorize application of the funds to other programs or to the county's general revenue fund.
|
Fines and fees | |
Add to Dashboard
|
Florida | AGO 96-38 | Clerks, collection of costs for crimes compensation | Other applicable opinions |
1. The additional costs authorized in section 960.20, Florida Statutes, are assessed on a per-case, rather than a per-count, basis. Therefore, such costs may not be assessed for each count + See morefor which the person pleads guilty or nolo contendere or is convicted or adjudicated delinquent.
2. The date on which the offense occurs determines the amount of additional costs. Thus, a person who commits a crime prior to July 1, 1992, but is convicted of the crime after that date would be assessed the amount authorized by section 960.20, Florida Statutes, on the date of the offense.
3. If the offense for which probation has been revoked constitutes a felony, misdemeanor, delinquent act, or criminal traffic offense and the probationer is adjudicated guilty of this offense or pleads no contest to the charges, the additional costs may be imposed. However, if the offense for which probation is revoked results only in the imposition of a sentence that was withheld when the defendant was placed on probation, section 960.20, Florida Statutes, does not authorize the imposition of such additional costs.
4. Section 960.20, Florida Statutes, requires that the court must state on the record in detail the reasons for waiving the assessment of additional costs.
|
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 |