Pennsylvania House Bill HB1617

Pennsylvania 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 8/15/23
• Refer: 8/15/23
• Refer: 7/9/24
• Report Pass: 7/10/24
• Engrossed: 7/10/24
• Refer: 7/12/24

Caption

In facilities and supplies, further providing for surcharge.

Impact

The proposed changes in HB1617 primarily affect the legal landscape regarding the management of surcharges associated with court costs. By redefining these exceptions, the bill intends to enhance judicial efficiency and potentially streamline the processes involved in handling traffic citations that are classified as summary offenses. This could have a significant impact on the expenses incurred by individuals facing such charges, thereby influencing how traffic offenses are processed and penalized within the state.

Summary

House Bill 1617 seeks to amend Title 42 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, specifically relating to surcharges imposed in judicial and procedural contexts. The bill revises the language concerning the imposition of surcharges which is associated with fees related to deposits into accounting, particularly by making adjustments in the exceptions where surcharges do not apply. The objective is to clarify the conditions under which these surcharges are enacted, ensuring that they align with specific judicial procedures and circumstances for various offenses.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB1617 appears generally supportive among lawmakers, particularly from those who view it as a necessary update to existing statutes, allowing for clearer guidelines in the judicial process. The clarity that the bill aims to provide is lauded by some members as a move towards simplifying judicial procedures, which is a common goal in legislative efforts. However, there may also be some concern regarding how these modifications could impact defendants, particularly if it results in increased fees or alterations in local jurisdiction enforcement.

Contention

Notable points of contention may arise around the interpretation of 'summary offenses' and whether the bill adequately addresses all possible scenarios that could affect defendants differently under varying circumstances. Moreover, questions surrounding the extent to which surcharges should be enforced and their proportionality in relation to the offenses in question could spark debate among both legislators and legal advocates. The final voting history, which shows unanimous support in the Appropriations Committee, reflects an initial consensus that may change as discussions evolve in broader legislative sessions.