Kentucky Supreme Court Order 2017-07: Sliding scale of indigency
This court rule establishes a “sliding scale of indigency” and advises judges to reduce or waive fees that would pose an undue burden on defendants.
Ability to Pay
Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 2017 – 80: Facilitating the imposition and collection of court-ordered financial obligations
This new rule requires Arizona courts to offer payment plans for those who are unable to immediately pay their fines and fees.
Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 2017 – 81: Bench cards for ability to pay at sentencing in criminal and civil traffic cases […]
This new court rule approves the use of two bench cards to help judges determine defendants' ability to pay at sentencing and in collections.
Mississippi Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rules 26.6 and 27.3: Fine, Restitution, and/or Court Costs following Adjudication of Guilt.
Following litigation by the ACLU, the MacArthur Justice Center, and the Southern Poverty Law Center challenging debtor’s prisons in Biloxi, Jackson, and Corinth, the Mississippi Supreme Court made two changes related to fines and fees in its Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Texas SB 1913: Relating to the administrative, civil, and criminal consequences, including fines, fees, and costs, imposed on persons arrested for, charged with, or convicted of certain criminal offenses.
This bill aims to improve the fairness of the Texas criminal justice system’s response to defendants’ inability to pay fines and fees in criminal cases, particularly in traffic and city ordinance violations.
Georgia State Conference of the NAACP et al. v. City of LaGrange, Georgia
Individuals must pay their unrelated LaGrange Municipal court fines and fees before gaining access to basic utility services. Further, the City charges $50 for a public defender. Unable to pay for a public defender, most people plead guilty or nolo contendere.
Fowler v. Johnson
Plaintiffs allege that the Michigan Department of State’s automatic suspension of driver’s license of persons who owe court fines and fees, regardless of their ability to pay violates due process and equal protection.
Paying More for Being Poor: Bias and Disparity in California’s Traffic Court System
This report is based on the authors’ research on traffic courts and driver’s license suspension practices in the San Francisco Bay Area. It details how much revenue courts collect from fines and fees, the harmful impacts those fees have on low-income Californians, and also advances several policy reform recommendations.
San Francisco Fines & Fees Task Force: Initial Findings and Recommendations
In late 2016, San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors directed the Office of the Treasurer and Tax Collector to create a Fines and Fees Task Force (staffed by the Treasurer’s Financial Justice Project) to study the impact of fines and fees on San Franciscans & propose relevant reforms. About six months later, the Task Force published this initial report in order to provide an overview of fines and fees in San Francisco as well as an array of reform recommendations.
Criminal Justice Debt Reform Builder
The Criminal Justice Debt Reform Builder is an online tool that allows users to quickly explore and assess fines and fees reform statutes in all 50 states.