Sec. 4. Constitutional enforcement of fines and fees and monetary bail
1,375 words·~6 min read·
/bill/116/s/3375/is/section-4A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
Section 203(b) of the State Justice Institute Act of 1984 ( 42 U.S.C. 10702(b) ) is amended— in paragraph (3), by striking and at the end; in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and inserting ; and ; and by adding at the end the following: assist State and local courts in the constitutional and equitable enforcement of fines and fees. . Section 206(a) of the State Justice Institute Act of 1984 ( 42 U.S.C. 10705(a) ) is amended— in paragraph (6), by striking and at the end; in paragraph (7), by striking the period at the end and inserting a semicolon; and by adding at the end the following: provide technical assistance and training to State and local courts to develop and implement best policies and practices for the constitutional and equitable enforcement of fines and fees that incorporate guidance that— courts should not incarcerate or issue an arrest warrant for an individual for the nonpayment of a fine or fee without first conducting an ability-to-pay determination and establishing that the failure to pay was intentional; courts should consider alternatives to incarceration for defendants who are currently unable to pay fines and monetary bail; courts should not condition access to a judicial hearing on the prepayment of a fine or fee or a promise of future payment of a fine or fee; courts should provide constitutionally adequate notices and counsel in cases in which a fine or fee will be imposed; courts should not initiate driver’s license suspension procedures for nonpayment of a fine or fee; if courts choose to issue an arrest warrant or suspend a driver’s license as a means of coercing an individual to pay a fine or fee owed to the court, courts should not do so if the individual has not been afforded constitutionally adequate procedural protections; courts should determine the ability to pay of an individual at sentencing prior to determining a constitutional and equitable fine and fee; courts should reduce and waive fines and fees if the court has discretion in cases where the imposition of fines and fees would be unconstitutional and inequitable or cause undue hardship to the individual; courts should avoid adopting mandatory fines and fees for misdemeanors and traffic-related and other low-level offenses and infractions; courts should grant judges the authority and discretion to modify sanctions after sentencing if the circumstances of the defendant change, including that the ability of the defendant to pay a fine or fee becomes a hardship; courts should adopt education requirements for judges and court personnel on issues related to all relevant constitutional and procedural principles relating to fines and fees; courts should not impose a fine, fee, or any other penalty for the participation of an individual in community service programs or other alternative sanctions; if courts utilize community service programs or alternative service sanctions, best practice and standards for those programs should be used, including fair wage attribution, caps on number of hours performed, and permissible activities of service; courts should not order or extend probation or other court-ordered supervision exclusively for the purpose of collecting fines, fees, or costs; courts should not charge interest on payment plans entered into by a defendant, respondent, or probationer; and courts should consider the use of community service credits such as completing community service hours, domestic violence counseling, and drug treatment programs, as an alternative to payments; and provide technical assistance and training to State and local courts to develop and implement best policies and practices for the constitutional enforcement of monetary bail that incorporate guidance that— courts should not employ monetary bail or bond practices that cause defendants to remain incarcerated solely because they cannot afford to pay for their release; courts should not impose monetary bail— as prepayment of anticipated fines and fees; or as a method for collecting past-due fines and fees; courts should eliminate and prohibit the use of monetary bail schedules; courts should impose a monetary pretrial release option if it is the least restrictive pretrial release option available; courts should only detain an individual if there is clear and convincing evidence that the individual poses a serious imminent risk of— a danger to the community; or flight; courts should safeguard against unconstitutional practices by court staff and private contractors; and courts should not pass the costs of pretrial release and electronic monitoring to the defendant, probationer, or parolee, and if the court determines that electronic monitoring is necessary, any associated costs should belong to the jurisdiction. .
Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Executive Director of the State Justice Institute shall promulgate regulations to implement the amendments made by paragraph (1), including— the information that shall be included in an application for funding under section 206 of the State Justice Institute Act of 1984 ( 42 U.S.C. 10705 ); and any other requirements applicable to grantees under that section. Section 211(a) of the State Justice Institute Act of 1984 ( 42 U.S.C. 10710(a) ) is amended— by striking The Institute and inserting
(1); and In general .—The Institute by adding at the end the following The Institute shall require that a recipient of a grant awarded for the purpose described in paragraph
(8)of section 206(a) shall submit to the Institute an annual report that includes, for the previous 12-month period— the number of new admissions to jail or prison due to failures to pay fines or fees; the number of new admissions to jail or prison due to failure to appear when the underlying offense is a failure to pay a fine or fee; the number and type of alternatives considered for defendants who are unable to pay fees and fines; the number of times a judicial hearing was contingent upon the prepayment of fines and fees, including hearing fees if the court deems the defendant ineligible for a fee waiver; the number of times constitutionally adequate notices were provided to counsel in cases in which a fine or fee will be imposed; the number of times an arrest warrant or driver’s license suspension was used as a means of coercing an individual to pay a fine or fee owed to the court; the number of additional fees imposed by the department of motor vehicles to get a driver’s license reinstated or suspension lifted; the number of times monetary bail practices were used that caused defendants to stay incarcerated due to their inability to pay a fine or fee; the number of times voter disenfranchisement was used as a result of an individual’s inability to pay a fine or a fee owed to the court; a disaggregation of the data described in this subparagraph by race, gender, and disability status; and any other additional statistical data that the Director determines should be collected and reported. The Institute shall submit to the Bureau of Justice Statistics and to the Committee on Appropriations and Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives an annual report on the data submitted under subparagraph (A). . Not later than 3 years after the date on which grants are first awarded for the purpose described in paragraph
(8)of section 206(a) of the State Justice Institute Act of 1984, as added by subsection
(b)of this section, the Executive Director of the State Justice Institute shall conduct a study on the effectiveness such grants on the constitutional enforcement of targeted fines, fees, and monetary bail by State and local courts. Not later than 180 days after the date on which the Executive Director of the State Justice Institute completes the study under paragraph (1), the Executive Director shall submit to Congress a report on the study and any policy recommendations that the Executive Director determines are appropriate. Section 215 of the State Justice Institute Act of 1984 ( 42 U.S.C. 10713 ) is amended, in the first sentence by striking $7,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008 and inserting $27,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2021 through 2026, of which $20,000,000 shall be authorized to be appropriated for grants under paragraph
(8)of section 206(a) .
Connectionstraces to 4
Citation graph
cites case law
Sec. 4
Constitutional enforcement of fines and fees and monetary bail
Cites 4Cited by 0 across 0 sources