Reduction of penalty surcharge when certain fines or forfeitures reduced. (FE)
Impact
The implications of AB188 may lead to a more equitable system regarding fines and forfeitures. By ensuring that penalty surcharges are adjusted in line with the fines or forfeitures imposed, the bill seeks to uphold fairness and justice in the penal system. This approach provides a clearer understanding of the total penalties involved and could lead to consistent applications of financial responsibilities as tied to judicial decisions, allowing courts greater discretion in exactly how penalties are imposed.
Summary
Assembly Bill 188 aims to amend the existing statute concerning the penalty surcharge that accompanies certain fines or forfeitures imposed by courts for violations of state laws or municipal ordinances. Under current law, a penalty surcharge of 26 percent is added to the fine or forfeiture. This bill proposes that in cases where the fine or forfeiture is reduced, the penalty surcharge must also be proportionally reduced. This change could potentially lessen the financial burden on violators who have had their penalties decreased by the court.
Contention
While the bill appears to present a simple fix to current law, there may be some opposition regarding its implementation, specifically concerning the potential ramifications on municipal revenues derived from fines. Critics might argue that by reducing penalty surcharges, local governments could face shortfalls in revenue that typically fund public services. Consequently, the bill raises questions about balancing judicial discretion against the fiscal needs of municipalities dependent on these funds.
A school bus camera grant program, a school bus safety camera surcharge, owner liability for illegally passing a school bus, and providing a penalty. (FE)
A school bus camera grant program, a school bus safety camera surcharge, owner liability for illegally passing a school bus, and providing a penalty. (FE)
Motor vehicle operators licenses restricting operators to the use of motor vehicles equipped with ignition interlock devices and providing a penalty. (FE)
Motor vehicle operators licenses restricting operators to the use of motor vehicles equipped with ignition interlock devices and providing a penalty. (FE)
Legalizing the possession of marijuana; medical marijuana; regulating the production, processing, and sale of marijuana; expunging or redesignating past convictions for marijuana-related crimes; equity grants; making an appropriation; and providing a penalty. (FE)
Requiring a criminal conviction for civil asset forfeiture and proof beyond a reasonable doubt that property is subject to forfeiture, remitting proceeds to the state general fund and requiring law enforcement agencies to make forfeiture reports more frequently.
Requiring a criminal conviction for civil asset forfeiture and proof beyond a reasonable doubt that property is subject to forfeiture, remitting proceeds to the state general fund and requiring law enforcement agencies to make forfeiture reports more frequently.
Requiring a criminal conviction for civil asset forfeiture, remitting proceeds from civil asset forfeiture to the state general fund, increasing the burden of proof required to forfeit property, making certain property ineligible for forfeiture, providing persons involved in forfeiture proceedings representation by counsel and the ability to demand a jury trial and allowing a person to request a hearing on whether forfeiture is excessive.
Specifying that certain drug offenses do not give rise to forfeiture under the Kansas standard asset seizure and forfeiture act, providing limitations on state and local law enforcement agency requests for federal adoption of a seizure under the act, requiring probable cause affidavit filing and review to commence forfeiture proceedings, increasing the burden of proof required to forfeit property to clear and convincing evidence, authorizing courts to order payment of attorney fees and costs for certain claimants and requiring the Kansas bureau of investigation to submit forfeiture fund financial reports to the legislature.
Specifying that certain drug offenses do not give rise to forfeiture under the Kansas standard asset seizure and forfeiture act, requiring courts to make a finding that forfeiture is not excessive, restricting actions prior to commencement of forfeiture proceedings, requiring probable cause affidavit filing and review to commence proceedings, increasing the burden of proof required to forfeit property to clear and convincing evidence and authorizing courts to order payment of attorney fees and costs for certain claimants.