NOTE: As provided in LFC policy, this report is
intended only for use by the standing finance committees of the
legislature. The Legislative Finance Committee does not assume
responsibility for the accuracy of the information in this report when used for
other purposes.
The most recent FIR
version (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) is available on the Legislative
Website. The Adobe PDF version includes
all attachments, whereas the HTML version does not. Previously issued FIRs and attachments may be
obtained from the LFC in
SPONSOR: |
Park |
DATE TYPED: |
|
HB |
771 |
||
SHORT TITLE: |
District Attorney Enforcement of Ordinances |
SB |
|
||||
|
ANALYST: |
Fox-Young |
|||||
APPROPRIATION
Appropriation
Contained |
Estimated
Additional Impact |
Recurring or
Non-Rec |
Fund Affected |
||
FY03 |
FY04 |
FY03 |
FY04 |
|
|
|
|
|
Unknown |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Parenthesis
( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)
Responses
Received From
Attorney
General (AG)
Department
of Public Safety (DPS)
Administrative
Office of the District Attorneys (AODA)
Public
Defender Department (PDD)
SUMMARY
Synopsis
of Bill
House
Bill 771 provides that a district attorney, in a class A county
containing a metropolitan court, may prosecute and defend municipal ordinances
of any municipality in the district in any court in the district.
Significant
Issues
The bill grants the Second Judicial District Attorney the authority to prosecute and defend municipal ordinances of municipalities located within the district.
The Attorney General (AG) notes that it not clear when a district attorney shall prosecute and defend municipal ordinances, since such actions are permissible but not required. The mechanics of arranging such prosecutions are also unclear, and the bill includes no provisions regarding contracts between the district attorney and the municipalities. AG notes that in contrast, Paragraph (B) of the current law states explicitly that the district attorney’s office and an Indian nation can enter into a contract regarding this exercise of authority.
The AG notes that payment cannot be made on a per conviction or per plea basis, since such a structure would constitute an impermissible governmental contingency fee arrangement.
The Department of Public Safety (DPS) notes that the
provisions of the bill will clarify jurisdiction in the future, when class A
counties prevent any issues of non-jurisdiction, in the future when Class A Counties consolidate.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
Municipalities affected by the bill will likely experience an increase in collections from fines assessed.
JCF/yr