Ability to Pay Archives - Page 3 of 11 - Fines and Fees Justice Center

McNeil v. Community Probation Services

Community Probation Services, LLC and PSI Probation, LLC, for-profit probation companies, provide probation services for Giles County, Tennessee. The companies add their own fees and surcharges to the court debts of probationers.

Minnesota HF 3357: Reduction or waiver of the criminal and traffic surcharge authorized; courts required to consider indigency or hardship before imposing fines, fees, or surcharges; and notice required.

This bill would allow courts to reduce or waive fines and fees imposed on defendants in criminal and traffic court, require courts to consider ability to pay before sentencing a defendant to pay a fine or fee, and require that traffic tickets inform recipients of the court’s ability to waive or reduce fines and fees.

Morales v. The City of Indio

This complaint alleges that the cities of Indio and Coachella outsourced the prosecution of some municipal code violations to a private law firm, Silver and Wright LLP.

Illinois HB 4594: The Criminal and Traffic Assessment Act

Broadly speaking, the Act streamlines, standardizes, and reduces court fees in order to facilitate a sliding scale fee waiver for defendants who cannot afford to pay. (Without these changes, the sliding scale would have been severely limited.)

“Set up to Fail”: The Impact of Offender-Funded Private Probation on the Poor

The author conducted qualitative research to assess the effect of private probation on people under parole supervision for misdemeanor offenses in Florida, Kentucky, Missouri, and Tennessee. In some of these states, private parole officers have the authority to control critical aspects of a person’s parole terms.

Timbs v. Indiana

Petitioner used life insurance proceeds to purchase a Land Rover for $41,558.30. He used the vehicle to transport heroin worth a total of $385. He was arrested and his vehicle was seized. Petitioner argued that the forfeiture was excessive in violation of the Eight Amendment’s excessive fines clause.

Arizona House Bill 2169: Driving violations; restricted licenses; penalties.

This bill amends an Arizona statute which required judges to suspend a defendant’s driver’s license for nonpayment of fines and fees. The bill allows courts, at their discretion, to adjust fines and fees that result in license suspension based on an individual’s ability to pay.

Opinion: Jeff Sessions has endorsed an unconstitutional fine on the poor

In this op-ed for the Washington Post, FFJC Co-Director Lisa Foster explains the harms inflicted by Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ refusal to ensure that the Constitution is enforced in local and …

Mississippi HB 387: An Act to Provide that Incarceration Shall Not Automatically Follow the Nonpayment of a Fine, Restitution, or Court Costs […]

This bill was proposed to enshrine Rule 26.6(b) of the Mississippi Rules of Criminal Procedure in state law. Its provisions are nearly identical: it mandates a determination of willfulness before a court may sanction a defendant for nonpayment of fines and fees, and provides alternatives for courts when failure to pay was not willful.

Florida SB 1270: Penalties And Fees… prohibiting the suspension of a person’s driver license solely for failure to pay certain financial obligations…

This 2018 bill - which did not pass - marks the third consecutive year that Senator Jeff Brandes (R-St. Petersburg) introduced legislation to end driver’s license suspension for nonpayment of fines and fees in Florida. This bill would also have required courts to provide reasonable payment alternatives for poor defendants, including payment plans and performing community service to pay fines.